The New York CLLA meeting is always busy.  This year, there was a buzz of excitement relating to a few areas.

First, everyone was taking about how the economy affects them.  For a group of collection and bankruptcy professionals, it was interesting to hear the dichotomy.  Pure collection folks (especially consumer collection folks) were bemoaning the reduction in collections.  Although they have more accounts, people are less able (willing?) to pay.  The commercial folks said the same things, but seemed a little more pessimistic.  Why?  In most places (with wage garnishment), the debtor will eventually get back to work.  A failed business is generally “failed” forever.  Those with creditor bankruptcy or workout practices were much more upbeat. They are busy (and making money).

Another area of “buzz” was the League’s Stategic Plan.  There was focused discussion and energy behind the movement of the Key Strategy Teams toward their first year objectives.  Click here to view the Plan.

Finally, there was an excitement around CLLA’s new Executive Vice President, Oliver Yandle.  Oliver is proving himself to be an asset in his very early weeks.  Now having been through one Fall meeting, I am sure he is even better position to help the CLLA reach its strategic goals and more.

…that we would have to prop up Fannie, Freddie and AIG at the same time?  There are so many interesting discussions going on around these actions.  Where do we draw the line?  What interest is really being protected by putting these scores of billions of Treasury dollars into these companies?  What would have been the result if we let one (or more) of them actually fail?  Where does the money come from to do this?  Could we afford to not do it?

I haven’t even begun to think of all the questions.

Recently, we published our Client Advisory, including an article on Consignments.  One of our colleagues asked:

Fine article. Question, if you don’t mind: Does the authenticated notification required to be sent by a consignor pursuant to UCC Sec. 9-324(b)(2) need to be sent to other consignors of goods provided to a common consignee for the filing consignor to retain a first priority security interets in its own consigned goods? I would not see why that would ne necessary but understand that is common (and burdensom) practice in the jewelry industry. Many thanks.

Without researching it, I think that, as 9103(d) makes a consognment a PMSI and as 9324(b)(2) sets out the steps to deal with a conflicting security interest in those types of collateral, one would have to follow 324 for the protections. To do otherwise, would allow “secret” PMSI’s against conflicting liens, something the Code gets away from. Haven’t seen a case and haven’t researched that point.

Anyone have different answer?