Stephen W. Sather
Barron & Newburger, P.C.
In a lesson that the Uniform Commercial Code is not always uniform between various states, the Fifth Circuit resolved a lien priority dispute pertaining to a Texas debtor who brought agricultural products in Oregon, Michigan and Tennessee. The opinion in a valuable primer in choice of law issues in UCC cases as well as how failure to strictly comply with state statutes can lead to loss of lien priority. Fishback Nursey, Incorporated v. PNC Bank, National Association, Case No. 18-10090 (5th Circuit 4/10/19).
BFN Operations, LLC was a wholesale grower of trees, shrubs, and other plants, with headquarters in Texas and offices in Michigan, Oregon and Tennessee.
PNC held a blanket lien in the debtor's assets which pre-dated the claims of two vendors to the debtor, Fishback and Surface.
Fishback sold agricultural products to the debtor and filed UCCs in Oregon, Michigan and Tennessee. It listed the debtor as BFN Operations, LLC abn Zelenka Farms. It also filed a notice of lien in Oregon.
Surface filed a UCC in Michigan using the name "BFN Operations, LLC abn Zelenka Farms.
When BFN filed chapter 11, PNC extended debtor-in-possession financing which would outrank other liens "subject and junior only to . . . valid, enforceable, properly perfected, and unavoidable pre-petition liens."
Fishback and Surface filed suit against PNC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking a declaration that their liens were superior to those of PNC.
The District Court ruled that applicable choice of law rules dictated that the law of the states where the agricultural products were shipped should govern the lien perfection and priority dispute. It then found that PNC had the prior lien because Fishback and Surface had failed to properly perfect.
The Court's Ruling
The first thing that the Fifth Circuit had to do was decide whether the District Court correctly determined that the law of the states where the agricultural products were shipped would apply. The Court noted that choice of law could be applied based upon either the law of the forum state or under federal choice-of-law rules. This is an open question in the Fifth Circuit. The District Court found that it did not have to pick a side because both answers pointed to the states where the ag products were shipped. The Fifth Circuit agreed. Under the Texas UCC, if farm products are located in a jurisdiction, the local law of that jurisdiction applies to perfection, the effect of perfection and the priority of an agricultural lien on farm products. Tex.Bus.&Com. Code Sec. 9.302. Federal law relies on the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law Sec. 251(2) which provides that absent "effective choice of law by the parties" the court should give "greater weight . . . to the location of the chattel at the time that the security interest attached."
Fishback argued that Oregon law should apply because its contracts contained a choice of law provision selecting Oregon law. However, those provisions were included in a contract between the Debtor and Fishback. As a result, they were not binding on PNC.
Each of the laws of the forum states had some quirky provisions. In Michigan and Tennessee, a UCC must be filed based on the debtor's name exactly as it appears on the public documents creating the entity. In this case, the company's legal name was BFN Operations, LLC, not BFN Operations, LLC abn Zelenka Farms. This may seem like a trivial distinction given that the name given was correct but added extra verbiage. However, the Court found that it was "undisputed that, under the strict search logics in these states, searching with BFN’s correct name would not uncover the incorrectly named liens." While this seems foolish, the states set out their search logic in regulations adopted to implement the UCC and that search logic would not catch the longer name.
Oregon was a different matter. Agricultural liens in Oregon are automatically perfected until 45 days after the debt is due. After that date, the party must file an extension supported by an affidavit. Fishback did file an extension but it was not within the 45 day window so that PNC's lien jumped in front of its. Fishback argued that its UCC filing met the requirement for the affidavit, but the Fifth Circuit found that it lacked the requisite information and would be misleading as an affidavit.
As bankruptcy lawyers, we are usually called in after the filings have been made and the lien perfection facts have been established. Therefore, the biggest lesson for bankruptcy lawyers is that when dealing with multi-state perfection issues, there may be room to look for strategies to upset other parties' lien expectations.