Robert P. Diederich

McGrath North hosted the 10th Annual Seminar for Accounting Professionals at the First National Tower Conference Center on November 5, 2015 .  

McGrath North is sponsoring and conducting our Tenth Annual Seminar for Accounting Professionals in Omaha, Nebraska.  The seminar will focus on a variety of topics such as: Assessing and Addressing Cyber Risk, M&A for the CPA, Section 1031 Tax Deferred Exchanges, Patent Protection, New Wage and Hour Exempt Status, Working with Potential Litigation in Mind, New Developments and Practice Pointers for State Taxes and Incentives, plus Common Retirement Plan Errors and Correction Opportunities and how they impact CPAs.  

The “after-acquired property clause” has become a staple of security agreements and wisely so. Without inclusion of such a clause in the granting language of a security agreement, some courts have held that a security interest does not extend to after-acquired property. Unwilling to take any risk and as a best practice, secured lenders have built after-acquired property clauses into their security agreements. Commonly, secured lenders have used the language “whether now owned or hereafter acquired” or a close variant thereof and have felt secure that such language fully protects their interest in after-acquired property. A closer look at the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”), though, reveals that this widely used phrase unnecessarily shrinks the scope of the secured lender’s collateral.  

Interpreting Nebraska law, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Eighth Circuit held in In re EDM Corporation (431 B.R. 459) that a financing statement failed to sufficiently provide the name of a debtor, where the name listed on the financing statement consisted of the debtor’s organizational name coupled with the debtor’s trade name.  As a result of the insufficient name, the financing statement was not validly perfected, and the secured party at issue lost its first position lien on the underlying assets.