Welcome to the new Lien Solutions blog – insights and resources to help professionals reduce risk and shape the future of their business. You’ll find articles on thought leadership, practical tips, and an exchange of ideas that drive innovation and better outcomes.
The debtor, a distributor of bulk petroleum products, entered into a consignment agreement with IPC. Under the agreement, IPC delivered fuel to the debtor–consignee (“Pettit”) for sale to consignee’s customers. Pettit filed for bankruptcy. At the time of the filing of bankruptcy, Pettit had had some of the consignor’s unsold fuel on hand, as well as proceeds from sold fuel (cash and accounts receivables—that is balances owed by customers that had not yet been paid) and which had not yet been remitted to the consignor.
When we left off in our last post, we had described two cases of UCC filings where the name of the debtor did not match with the legally accepted form of the name. The situation applied to both a company name and an individual person’s name. In the case of Ronald Markt Nay v. Leaf Capital Funding, LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana), it was a matter of following the code.
The modern financial landscape is growing increasingly more complex due to internal corporate pressures and external regulatory changes. In terms of secured lending processes, filing Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) forms correctly and in a timely manner is critical, yet full of complexity. Furthermore, monitoring the health of your liens and continuing your liens, if warranted, is equally important. This blog series will look at some of the things that cannot be missed if one is to securely file and manage UCCs, whether you file directly through a Secretary of State or use a law firm or other partner to file.
On top of that, the lending landscape itself is changing, with increasing expectations and demands from regulators, corporate and customers, and productivity opportunities presented by process improvements and technology. In short, change is driving not only the need for more proactive lien management but also the tools and methods for doing so. Disruption has been […]
It’s always been important for lenders not only to perfect their assets but to manage and maintain the perfection of their portfolios over time. Changing events and circumstances impact the protections that have been put in place, and it’s necessary to be diligent in addressing them.
As a lending professional, it’s your job to ensure your company’s assets are protected with each loan it makes. As we’ve learned in Lien Management – Not as difficult as you might fear and Monitoring and Auto Continuation of this lien management primer series, that can be a real test. However, we’ve also discovered it doesn’t have to be difficult if you find the right partner that can provide automated solutions and guidance to overcome challenges.
Proper lien management of your loan portfolio doesn’t have to be an onerous chore. In fact, employing proper lien management practices offers the lender many risk management and workflow efficiency benefits at each step of the loan lifecycle.
In 2013, the 2010 Amendments to Article 9 took effect. Among other provisions, the amendments provide that a driver’s license (or state-issued I.D.) is the correct source for determining an individual debtor’s name for a financing statement. With the idea of there being an exception for everything in mind, a recent court case was faced with the question of what to do if the driver’s license has two names on it.
All liens expire. Liens can be continued with a continuation. Failure to continue a lien means the asset is no longer secured. Learn more about Auto-Continuation.