 |
 |
|
|
|
| ||||
| Email Newsletter | Content Licensing | Subscribe | Contact Us |
| Print Edition |
|
 |
| SUBSCRIBE |
|
|
|
| Ask the Attorney |
|
|
How has
the UCC1 form changed?
Updated 3:07 p.m. ET, Mon Aug 13, 2001 JoC ONLINE Question: Why are debtor and secured party signatures no longer needed on the UCC1 forms as of July 1, 2001? Mark Peterson Answer: Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which governs secured transactions, has undergone a substantial revision. The change in the UCC1 form is only one of many revisions. These changes are adopted on a state-by-state basis. The uniform effective date was July 1, 2001. The requirements for a sufficient UCC1 (financing statement) have been reduced to four:
Unlike Former Article 9, which required the debtor's authorization to be part of the public record (in the form of the debtor's signature), revised Article 9 dispenses with a signature requirement. Instead, a UCC1 (financing statement) may be authorized in any authenticated record. The debtor's authentication of a security agreement is ipso facto authorization of the filing of a UCC1 (financing statement) covering the collateral described in the security agreement. The filing of an unauthorized UCC1 (financing statement) is prohibited, and any person who violates the prohibition is liable for actual damages caused and a statutory penalty.
Leonard Rosenberg has been
practicing customs law for over 25 years. He was formerly a senior attorney
with the U.S. Customs Service and is now a director of Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg,
P.A., a national law firm concentrating its practice in customs, international
trade and transportation law, inbound and outbound immigration and intellectual
property rights. He can be contacted at llr@strtrade.com.
Got a question about trade
and transportation? Our legal experts can provide the answer. E-mail your queries
to Ask the
Attorney, and please include your name, company affiliation and daytime
phone number. Only one question per e-mail, please, and limit your query to
100 words. No attachments will be accepted. All questions become the property
of JoC Online, and are subject to editing for length and clarity. The responses
provided are intended to serve as general legal commentary on transportation
and logistics issues. They are not intended to serve as legal advice on specific
matters. Neither the JoC Online, Journal of Commerce Group, or our commentator
is liable for the opinions expressed here.
JoC Online Archive: |
Revised
Article 9 reflects the fact that substantial transactions increasingly occur
without the use of paper. It is "medium-neutral"; that is, it makes
clear that parties may use virtually any medium for communicating with one another
and memorializing their agreements. In most circumstances in which Former Article
9 contemplated a "writing," Revised Article 9 speaks in terms of a
"record." Where Former Article 9 referred to a "signed"
agreement or notification, Revised Article 9 generally requires the agreement
or notification to be "authenticated." This approach is reflected
in the fact that Revised Article 9 explicitly permits filing offices to accept
UCC1s (financing statements) and other records, and to communicate with filers,
in any medium or media they choose. Revised Article 9's medium neutrality does
not mandate electronic filing. It leaves to each jurisdiction the task of determining
what kinds of technology are appropriate for implementing its filing system.
|
| © Copyright
2001 The Journal of Commerce Group. All rights reserved. Legal disclaimer | Privacy policy | Terms & conditions |