Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2024
Abstract
This article reviews different critiques of scholars and practitioners on the correctness of the Seventh and First Circuit Court of Appeals opinions in First Midwest Bank v. Reinbold, 938 F. 3d. 866, 100 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (7th Cir. 2019) cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 1125, 206 L. Ed. 2d 189 (2020) and Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Andalusian Global Designate Activity Co. 914 F. 3d 694 (1st Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 47, 205 L. Ed. 2d 29 (2019). These two decisions address the question as to whether an incorporation by reference to an unattached security agreement satisfies the “indication of collateral” requirement for a financing statement under section 9-502(a)(3) of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Considering the fundamental importance of filing a financing statement to perfect a security interest under Article 9 of the Code, the conflicts and ambiguities raised in these commentaries warrant a clarification by the Commission on Uniform Commercial Laws. This article suggests that such a clarification can be effectively addressed through the issuance of a Commentary by the Commission of Uniform Laws’ Permanent Editorial Board for the UCC.
Recommended Citation
Veryl Victoria Miles, A Case for Clarity: Indication of Collateral, 43 Ann. Rev. Banking & Fin. L. 293 (2023-2024).
