California Ucc Security Agreement

– Ally Financial Inc. Pira, 2017 WL 6014258 (Ill. Ct. App. 2017) – A car mechanic was entitled to a craftsman`s pledge on a car, primarily according to uCC No. 9-333 in relation to a previously advanced safety interest. The pawn fee covered a retail and repair fee of $658, but not a storage fee of $27,780. – Semcon IP Inc. v. Huawei Device USA Inc., 2017 WL 1017424 (E.D. Tex. 2017) – A patent buyer who granted the seller a security interest in patents was able to maintain a infringement action against a third party without joining the part insured by the seller, since the buyer could not surrender the patents without the seller`s consent.

, which explicitly stated that the purchaser had exclusive authority to enforce the patents. Inc. vs. PNC Bank, 2017 WL 6497802 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2017) – Financing returns from farm deposit holders in Michigan and Tennessee were ineffective in finding farm wages because they identified the debtor as "BFN Operations, LLC abn Zelenka Farms," instead of simply "BFN Operations, LLC," and an official search in each of those states would not have disclosed the bids. Therefore, priority was given to the perfect safety interest of an insured portion for these agricultural products. The notice that an agricultural link submitted in Oregon was also inoperative because such a notification expires 45 days after the final payment expires and the termination effect may be extended, the extension of the deposit holder was filed after the notification was cancelled.

In addition, the depositor`s statement of funding filed in Oregon did not substitute a formal notice of deposit, because he did not have some of the necessary information. – Farmer`s and Miner`s Bank v. Lee, 2017 WL 4707457 (E.D. Ky. 2017) – A secure party with advanced secure participation in a device that the debtor used in his service contract with a mining tenant prevailed over a right claim from a mechanic over the company who had repaired and stored the equipment after the debtor suspended his contract. There was no right to pledge because the mechanic`s statutes provide for a pawn on the tenant`s property, but the debtor was not the tenant. Even if the applicants had a legal right of guarantee, the bank`s security interests would have prevailed, since it would have been perfected long before the mechanic was granted the right to pledge. (e) When a new debtor is bound as a debtor by a guarantee contract entered into by another person, both are considered debtors: – GEOMC v.

Calmare Therapeutics, Inc., 2017 WL 3585337 (D. Conn. 2012) – The CEO of a company had both the real and obvious power to enter into a security agreement on behalf of the company, and the security contract was therefore not ultra vir. Although, two years later, the company`s board of directors stated that the CEO may have acted in contradiction with the company`s property and that the security agreement was retroactively "unauthorized, rejected and uncomposible," this statement did not affect the validity of the security agreement. The agreement required the agent to deposit a certain amount into an account for the beneficiaries, but did not indicate that this amount was the purchase price. – In re Carr, 2017 WL 6016215 (Bankr. D.C. 2017) – The security interest of a secure part for a cabinet system that has become an integral part of the debtor`s home has been enhanced by filing a financing return.