Lenders and their counsel know that it is important to properly describe the collateral on which a lien (mortgage or security interest) is being granted. The purpose of this post is to discuss some recent decisions contrary to what many corporate counsel thought they knew concerning collateral descriptions in security agreements and UCC financing statements.

Ohio and other states where Frost Brown Todd has offices have long had witness and/or notary requirements for the execution of mortgages. Ohio Revised Code Section 5301.01 provides that a “mortgage . . . shall be signed by the . . . mortgagor. . . . The signing shall be acknowledged by the . . . mortgagor . . . before a . . . notary public . . .

Consider the common commercial loan collection situation: a business debt collateralized by relatively permanent collateral (real property or durable non-mobile equipment such as a printing press) and transient collateral (inventory, accounts receivable and cash).[1] Frequently, there is also potentially recoverable unsecured debt because the collateral is insufficient to pay the entire debt and (a) the collateral does not include all the borrower’s

A lawyer’s usual task is to help solve the client’s current problem: resolve a dispute; close a loan; obtain a permit; avoid a conviction; etc. Lawyers are so task oriented that some consultants advise us to have task specific engagement understandings and send dis-engagement letters when a task is complete. For bankruptcy lawyers representing individuals in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the task at hand is getting clients to and through a confirmed Chapter 13 plan with the promised debt relief and fresh start.

Lawyers representing creditors often compete with federal government claims against the same insolvent borrower/debtor. There are several common federal statutes that impact these disputes including: 11 U.S.C. Section 507[1]; 26 U.S.C. Section 6321[2], et seq.; and 31 U.S.C.

Can’t get no satisfaction? Sometimes you can! Would you prefer to have security to cover a debt or the cash in the bank, challenges?

Obtaining Decree

In most circumstances, court proceedings will need to be raised by creditors to recover outstanding sums owed. Depending on the amount due, the action will be a Small Claim (up to and including £3,000) a Summary Cause (over £3,000 and up to and including £5,000) or an Ordinary Action (over £5,000). 

After obtaining a Decree (or judgement in England) there are a number of steps that can be taken, if the debtor does not make payment, to recover the outstanding debt. In Scotland this process is known as “diligence”. 

It was anticipated that more radical thoughts would emerge from Lord Justice Jackson’s latest speech last night to the Insolvency Practitioners’ Association on the subject of rolling out more fixed costs, and so it proved.

On January 1, 2016, the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA) was enacted in Kentucky and can be found at KRS 378A.005 e seq.  The UVTA replaces KRS 378, which contained KRS 378.010, the Kentucky fraudulent conveyance statute, and KRS 378.060, the Kentucky preference statute.  Nationally, the UVTA will replace the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”).  According to the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, California, Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, and North Dakota have joined Kentucky in enacting the UVTA. 

In the case of Bibby Factors Northwest Limited v HFD Limited and MCD Group Limited the Court of Appeal has ruled that there is ordinarily no duty on a company whose debt has been purchased (the Debtor) to inform the purchasing company (the Funder) of any pre-existing contractual arrangements it has with the company assigning the debt (the Assignor).  If the Funder wants this information it must directly request it.

Implications