On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Secured Transactions 2019: What Lawyers Need to Know About UCC Article 9

Released on: Jan. 14, 2019
Running Time: 06:24:00
Secured transactions -- interests in specific collateral granted by the debtor in conjunction with the debtor’s promise to pay -- are governed by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. At this program, you will learn the fundamentals of acquiring a security interest, including how to attach, to perfect (filing and non-filing methods) and to gain (and maintain) priority in the collateral of your choice. You will learn how to secure the most common forms of collateral, as well as how to perfect a security interest in some uncommon forms of collateral. In addition, our expert faculty of UCC practitioners will cover the basics of drafting the security agreement, common default and enforcement issues, including protecting your security interest from the bankruptcy trustee. Plus you will hear about recent case law.

Topics Include

  • Where to file
  • Is perfection by filing the best method?
  • How to describe the collateral
  • Determining the debtor’s name
  • How to categorize collateral
  • Techniques for drafting the security agreement
  • What are the non-temporal priorities, and why do they matter?
  • How do you know that the security interest has attached?
  • How to perfect in assets commonly held by individuals, including bitcoins and PayPal accounts
  • How to comply with the default enforcement rules
  • What is the difference between a public and private sale?
  • When can the secured creditor buy in at the sale?
  • How bankruptcy can affect your lien 
Lecture Topics [Total time 06:24:00]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:02:59]
    Kenneth Chin, Penelope L. Christophorou
  • UCC Article 9: Basic Building Blocks and Drafting the Security Agreement [01:29:27]
    Edwin E. Smith
  • The Filing System and Case Law Developments Under UCC Article 9 [01:30:15]
    Darrell W. Pierce, Edwin E. Smith
  • UCC Article 9: Common, Uncommon and Special Collateral Types and Anti-Assignment Clause Overrides [02:04:04]
    Kenneth Chin, Penelope L. Christophorou, Tarik J. Haskins
  • Default, Enforcement and Bankruptcy: UCC Considerations When Things Go Wrong [01:17:15]
    Stephen D. Zide, Kenneth Chin

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • UCC Article 9: Basic Building Blocks (Outline)
    Steven O. Weise
  • A Summary of the Provisions of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (October 2018)
    Edwin E. Smith
  • Sample Form of UCC Article 9 Security Agreement and Perfection Certificate (All Personal Property Assets) (October 2018)
    Edwin E. Smith
  • Drafting the Security Agreement (January 7, 2019) (PowerPoint slides)
    Edwin E. Smith
  • The Article 9 Filing System
    Darrell W. Pierce
  • 2017–2018 Commercial Law Developments (August 1, 2018)
    Steven O. Weise, Lynn A. Soukup, Stephen L. Sepinuck, Edwin E. Smith, Teresa Wilton Harmon, John F. Hilson
  • Special Collateral Types: Deposit Accounts, Securities Accounts, and Letters of Credit
    Penelope L. Christophorou
  • Common Assets/Uncommon Collateral and Special Collateral Types (Outline)
    Kenneth Chin
  • Alternative Entity Equity Interests as Collateral
    Tarik J. Haskins
  • Liens in Chapter 11 (Outline)
    Stephen D. Zide

Presentation Material

  • Drafting the Security Agreement
    Edwin E. Smith
  • The Filing System
    Darrell W. Pierce
  • Article 9 Case Law Update
    Edwin E. Smith, Lynn A. Soukup
  • Common Assets/Uncommon Collateral and Special Collateral Types
    Kenneth Chin
  • Alternative Entity Equity Interests as Collateral
    Tarik J. Haskins
  • Special Collateral Types: Securities, Securities Accounts, Deposit Accounts and Letters of Credit
    Penelope L. Christophorou
  • Default and Enforcement
    Kenneth Chin, Lynn A. Soukup
  • Liens in Bankruptcy
    Stephen D. Zide
Co-Chair(s)
Kenneth Chin ~ Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Penelope L. Christophorou ~ Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Speaker(s)
Tarik J. Haskins ~ Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
Darrell W. Pierce ~ Dykema Gossett PLLC
Edwin E. Smith ~ Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Stephen D. Zide ~ Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

On-Demand  On-Demand Programs

Secured Transactions 2018: What Lawyers Need to Know About UCC Article 9 Jan. 17, 2018

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Secured Transactions 2019: What Lawyers Need to Know About UCC Article 9 Penelope L. Christophorou, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Kenneth Chin, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
 
Secured Transactions 2018: What Lawyers Need to Know About UCC Article 9 Penelope L. Christophorou, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Kenneth Chin, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2019 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2019 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.