Assignments and Security Interests Under UCC Article 9: A Worthy Decision
The March 2020 Commentary and its accompanying amendments to the Official Comments are critical steps in getting the commercial finance industry and, more importantly, courts aligned on how 9-406 and 9-607 work in concert.
December 16, 2022 at 10:30 AM
11 minute read
As industry participants well know, the financing of payment rights, such as accounts receivable, can take many forms, including traditional borrower/lender secured loans, trade receivables sales and other factoring arrangements, and securitizations, which can involve both sales of payment rights and financings secured by such assets. Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code can apply to all of these structures. In fact, UCC §9-102(a) (Scope) makes it quite clear that, subject to certain specific exceptions, Article 9 applies to any transaction, regardless of form, that creates a security interest in personal property by contract, as well as to a sale of accounts, chattel payment, payment intangibles or promissory notes.
The basic definitions of Article 9 align with this approach of applying to both an assignment of payment rights and a security interest in such assets. "[S]ecurity interest" in UCC Article 1, §1-201(b)(35) (General Definitions), includes "any interest of a … buyer of accounts, chattel paper, a payment intangible or a promissory note in a transaction that is subject to Article 9." The definition of "secured party" in Article 9, §9-102(a)(73) (Definitions and Index of Definitions), includes a "person in whose favor a security interest is created or provided for under a security agreement," as well as a "person to which accounts, chattel paper, payment intangibles or promissory notes have been sold." Finally, the definition of "debtor" in Article 9, §9-102(a)(28), includes both a "person having an interest, other than a security interest or other lien, in the collateral" and a "seller of accounts, chattel paper, payment intangibles or promissory notes."
However, UCC Article 9 itself, unfortunately, is not always consistent in its use of terminology, often referring to assignments or security interests interchangeably. According to the Permanent Editorial Board for the Uniform Commercial Code (the PEB), a committee of members of the American Law Institute and the Uniform Law Commission charged with issuing official commentary on the UCC, this is largely historical in nature and (as per Comment 5 to UCC §9-109) more of a "drafting convention."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAs 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 13rd Circuit Strikes Down NLRB’s Monetary Remedies for Fired Starbucks Workers
- 2Latest Class of Court Officers Sworn into Service in New York
- 3Kirkland's Daniel Lavon-Krein: Staying Ahead of Private Equity Consolidation
- 4Many Southeast Law Firms Planned New, Smaller Offices in 2024
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Goldberg Segalla, Faegre Drinker, Pashman Stein
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250