I recently had a piece published in the ARITA Journal with the above, rather lengthy, title.
The topic is the extent to which a financier’s security interest is really affected by the vesting provision, section 267, in the PPSA. There is a current practice of letters being dispatched to the holders of any unperfected security interests in leased equipment, claiming vesting of all interest in the collateral in issue, without regard to upstream financier’s interests. The fact is that there are good arguments that the financier’s interest is not affected, even if the owner of the equipment who has provided the lease may lose its interest because of vesting.
This article deals with such an example where the argument of the VA in that case was defeated by the citation of a Canadian case on point. The issue hasn’t been dealt with by the Courts in Australia yet so is topical, and is relevant to major banks and equipment fleet financiers who can be affected.
A link to a PDF copy appears below.