In this hypothetical, we will consider the following circumstances.
- “Farmer Bob” grows wheat (i.e., crops)
- “AgBank” has loaned Farmer Bob money secured in part by his wheat
- “Massive Grain Elevator” wants to purchase Farmer Bob’s wheat
Can Massive buy the wheat and not get the shaft from AgBank? It depends. In 1985 Congress passed the Food Security Act; the provision 7 U.S.C. Section 1961, titled Protection for Purchasers of Farm Products (FSA), constitutes a wholesale preemption of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). UCC Revised Article 9-320(a) provides that:
“a buyer in ordinary course of business, other than a person buying farm products from a person engaged in farming operations, take free of a security interest created by the buyer’s seller, even if the security interest is perfected and the buyer knows of its existence.”
In addition, Official Comment 4 to 9-320(a) provides that:
“this section does not enable a buyer of farm products to take free of the security interest created by the seller … however, a buyer of farm products may take free of a security interest under Section 1324 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7. U.S.C. Section 1631″
Meanwhile, FSA Section 1324 provides that notwithstanding Article 9 of the UCC, farm product buyers, commission merchants and selling agents (buyers in ordinary course) take free of security interests in farm products created by sellers unless one of two exceptions applies: 1) direct notice or 2) special central filing.…
In a triumph of substance over form, on August 22, 2013, the Tenth Appellate District Court of Appeals disregarding self-serving labels and further clarified the distinction between a loan and a sale of accounts receivable in Fenway Financial, LLC dba Commission Express v. Greater Columbus Realty, LLC dba Keller Williams Greater Columbus Realty, LLC, No. 12AP-291. To cut to the chase, the Court found that regardless of the buzz words used, leaving the seller of an account receivable with the risk of collectability is a key factor in characterizing a transaction as a loan, not as a sale, and may implicate state loan licensing requirements and other statutes, including provisions dealing with the scope of UCC Article 9.…
On July 8, 2013, Ohio’s 5th District Court of Appeals issued an opinion that will be of interest to commercial equipment lessors in Ohio. This case concerns the commercial lease of a beverage caddy and the status of the “middle man” lessee when the vendor undergoes bankruptcy.
Elms Country Club, the lessee (“Elms”), believed that the agreement constituted a “zero-net-lease” so that the vendor would pay lessee the monthly payments, which lessee would then pay to the bank. The vendor (“Royal Links”) made only four of the anticipated sixty payments. Elms made no further payments and retained possession of the caddy because the lessor never repossessed the caddy.
The lessor, a commercial bank, sued for breach of the equipment lease and Elms filed a third party complaint against Royal Links which filed a bankruptcy action. After relief from the bankruptcy stay, some years later, the lessor filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted.…