Search

The Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) affects many types of transactions in the marketplace. A holder of a security interest arising from such a transaction is well-advised to register its interest in the Personal Property Securities Register. Perhaps the greatest incentive to register comes from the vesting rule in s 267 of the PPSA. This rule provides that a security interest will vest in the grantor if it is not registered (or otherwise perfected) at the Critical Time (that is, when a specified insolvency event occurs in relation to the grantor of the security interest). Vesting results in the holder of the unregistered security interest losing its interest in the property that is subject to the security interest. The wide scope of the PPSA and a prevailing misunderstanding in the marketplace of whether or how the PPSA applies have breathed life into the vesting rule. As with many provisions in the PPSA, the vesting rule, while simple in concept, is difficult to interpret. In particular, what is the result when two specified insolvency events occur in relation to the same grantor company? This article focuses on the operation of the vesting rule between the time the grantor company goes into administration (the first insolvency event) and when it is subsequently wound up (a second insolvency event). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is to provide some guidance to practitioners and the judiciary in both Australia and New Zealand on the vital question: when is a sale in the 'ordinary course of business' for the purposes of the Personal Property Securities Acts of Australia and New Zealand? It is not uncommon for the courts to say that in any given case this is a question of fact. But, while not denying the importance of the particular factual circumstances in issue, the author seeks to demonstrate that the analysis will be facilitated by adopting a structured approach that initially recognises the primacy of security interests and that follows sound legal principles developed by the North American courts. Differences between the Australian and New Zealand legislative provisions are analysed to determine whether they lead to different outcomes on either side of the Tasman. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the enforcement of Personal Property Securities Act of 2010, Commonwealth (Cth), that attracts the interests of commentators and practitioners who register the interest of good practice for personal property. It provides information on a notice based system of registration for security interests taken over personal property. It also highlights the priority provisions as against other underlying interest taken over on same personal property.

The article offers information about the legal framework for personal property securities in Australia under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009. Topics include the history of personal securities that led to the passage of the commercial reform, security interest in the legislation, and internal priority rules under the law.

The article offers information about migrated security interests under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 in Australia. Topics include the history of migrated security interests, personal property securities, commercial law in countries such as the United States and Canada, and securities reform in Australia.

This paper focuses on a statutory provision common to Australian, New Zealand and Canadian personal property securities legislation which requires a grantor of a security interest generally to have 'rights in the collateral' before a security interest can attach to that collateral. It analyses the extent to which a particular construction of that provision, initially developed by Canadian courts and commentators in the context of certain lease transactions and now applied in New Zealand, may and should colour construction of the equivalent Australian legislation. The paper argues that 'new learning', which holds the interest of a lessee sufficient to enable a security interest to attach to leased goods, is capable of achievement through different reasoning to that currently adopted by New Zealand courts. Such reasoning has significant implications for understanding when a security interest may attach to personal property more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]