Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Abbreviated Name Makes UCC Financing Statement Defective
In In re Bryant, (Bankr. M.D. Ga. June 7, 2021), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Georgia determined that a lender's UCC-1 financing statements were "seriously misleading" under the Georgia Commercial Code. Because the financing statements identified the individual debtor with his middle name abbreviated, the court concluded that the financing statements were defective and, therefore, that the lender's security interest had not been perfected.
'Seriously Misleading' UCC-1 Financing Statements
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) requires that a financing statement meet certain standards in order for the lender to effectively perfect a security interest in an individual debtor's collateral. One of these requirements is that the financing statement provide the debtor's name. The comments to the UCC indicate that the name requirement is "particularly important," because "financing statements are indexed under the name of the debtor and those who wish to find financing statements search for them under the debtor's name."
Section 9-503 of the UCC provides two alternative methods for a secured creditor to employ in order to identify its individual debtor. The first method distinguishes between: a debtor holding an unexpired driver's license issued by the state where the financing statement is filed; and a debtor who does not hold an unexpired driver's license issued by the relevant state. If the debtor has a validly issued and unexpired driver's license, the lender is constrained to provide the individual debtor's name as it appears on the driver's license; on the other hand, if the individual debtor does not hold such a license, a financing statement will be sufficient if it provides either the debtor's "individual name" or the debtor's surname or family name and first personal name.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.