Introduction to Secured Transactions
A creditor’s primary
goal under Article 9 (Secured Transactions) of the Uniform Commercial
Code (“UCC”) is to become a secured creditor with first priority in
assets of the debtor. Unless the security interest is a
preference under the
bankruptcy code (generally perfected within 90 days without new
consideration), it is entitled to priority over unsecured claims.
The UCC uses technical vocabulary to describe the
law of secured transactions. The interest of the creditor in assets of
the debtor generally applies to any interest (regardless of its form)
created by contract in personal property and fixtures and which secures
payment or other performance of an obligation.[1]
That interest is referred to as a security interest,[2]
and the property subject to the security interest is referred to as collateral.
[3]
The debtor is the
person who has a property interest in the collateral other than a
security interest or other lien.[4]
The term “debtor” also includes a seller of accounts, chattel paper, promissory
notes or payment intangibles,[5]
a person who has a property interest in collateral subject to an agricultural
lien,[6]
and a consignee.[7]
The person who owes the debt (the “secured obligation”) is not the debtor but is
referred to as the "obligor".[8]
In most
secured transactions the person who has a property interest in the
collateral is the same person who owes the secured obligation so usually
the debtor and the obligor are the same person.
The security interest
becomes legally enforceable against the debtor when it attaches
[9] but is not legally enforceable against third parties until it is perfected.
"Attachment" is the coming into existence of a security interest. "Perfection"
relates to doing some additional act, usually the filing of a financing statement,
required to make the security interest effective as against third
parties.
For a security interest
to attach, the following must have occurred: (1) value must have been
given; (2) the debtor must have rights in the collateral; and (3) either
(i) the collateral must be in possession of the secured party by
agreement of the debtor or, if the collateral is investment property, a
deposit account, electronic chattel paper or a letter-of-credit right,
the secured party must have “control” of the collateral; or (ii) the
debtor must have authenticated a security agreement that contains a
description of the collateral.[10]
The agreement under which a security interest is granted or
provided for is called a “security agreement”.[11]
An attached security
interest is a “perfected security interest” if it will prevail over a
creditor using judicial process to obtain a lien on the collateral,
including a trustee in bankruptcy having the status of a lien creditor
under §544(a) of the Bankruptcy Code[12]
on the commencement of the debtor’s bankruptcy. There are three primary ways in
which an attached security interest may be perfected. First, the secured
party may file a properly completed financing statement [13]
in the appropriate filing office.[14]
Second, the secured party may take possession of the collateral or, in the case
of investment property, a deposit account, electronic chattel paper or a
letter-of-credit right, may obtain control of the collateral. Third, in
a few cases, the security interest may be perfected automatically upon
attachment. Depending upon the category of collateral, there may be only
one method of perfection or several.
In some situations, no
additional steps beyond attachment are necessary to perfect a security
interest.[15]
Perfecting a security interest in
intellectual property
Intellectual property is a type of general intangible.
[16]
Federal and state statutes may provide alternative methods of perfection and
compliance may be necessary for perfection.[17]
Patents are governed by
The Patent Act of 1952, as amended.[18]
Copyrights are governed by the Copyright Act.[19]
The courts have considered whether these statutes preempt UCC state law. The
majority rule is that compliance with the Copyright Act is necessary for
perfection of a security interest in copyrights but security interests
in patents may be perfected by filing a UCC-1 financing statement:
The extent to which the
Federal Copyright Act regulates transfers, including security interests,
leads to the conclusion that it preempts state methods of perfecting
security interests in copyrights. National Peregrine, Inc. v. Capitol
Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n (In re Peregrine Entertainment, Ltd.), 116
B.R. 194, 199 (C.D.Cal.1990). The failure of the Patent Act to include
security interests within the scope of its regulation leads to the
opposite conclusion; the Patent Act does not preempt state regulation of
security interests in patents. See In re 199Z, Inc., 137 B.R. 778
(Bankr.C.D.Cal.1992) (Lanham Act trademark legislation does not preempt
state regulation of security interests because it does not expressly
include security interests within its scope).[20]
Perfecting a security interest in software
Software embedded in goods is considered as part of the goods
if the software is customarily viewed as a part of the goods (e.g., the computer chip
in the automatic brakes on an automobile) or if, by becoming the owner of the goods, a
person acquires a right to use the software with the goods.
[21] If it is not embedded, software is part of the residual category for intangible
property.[22] A security
interest in software is perfected by filing.
[23]
[2] See
§1-201(b)(35) defining “security interest”.
[3] See
§9-102(a)(12) defining “collateral”.
[6]
§9-102(a)(28)(A); see §9-102(a)(5) defining “agricultural lien”.
[7]
§9-102(a)(28)(C); see §9-102(a)(20) defining “consignment”.
[11] §9-102(a)(73);
§9-102(a)(74) (2010).
[13] See
§9-102(a)(39) defining “financing statement”.
[14] See
§9-102(a)(37) defining “filing office”.
[15] See §9-309. The
most common example is a purchase-money security interest in
consumer goods.
[16] General
intangibles” is a residual category for intangible property.
§9-102(a)(42).
[18] 35 U.S.C. §
1–376 (1984),
[20]
In re Cybernetic Services,
Inc., 239 B.R. 917, 922 (9th Cir.BAP (Cal.),1999);
affirmed
In re Cybernetic Services,
Inc., 239 B.R. 917, 922 (9th Cir.BAP (Cal.),1999)
cited by
In re Pasteurized Eggs
Corp., 296 B.R. 283 Bkrtcy.D.N.H.,2003.