Security is largely regulated by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (CDU). This legislation ensures uniformity throughout the credit industry and raises awareness among debtors and creditors of their rights. Over the years, section 9 has become one of the most important elements of the Code. It applies to all transactions that establish a security right in personal property. Many lenders are reluctant to make arrangements that would jeopardize their ability to receive adequate compensation if the borrower defaults. Entrepreneurs seeking financing from multiple sources can find themselves in difficult situations when borrowers need security features for their assets. Small businesses, in particular, may have few properties or assets that can be used as collateral to secure loans. A valid security agreement includes at least a description of the security, a statement of intent to provide security, and the signatures of all parties involved. However, most safety features go beyond these basic requirements. Many include restrictive covenants (or obligations of the debtor) and guarantees (guarantees). Examples of restrictive covenants or guarantees include: A security agreement mitigates the risk of default faced by the lender.
As mentioned earlier, a security agreement cannot be considered valid if the security is not adequately described. In particular, descriptions of collateral should not be too broad or generic. An overly general description may include a general description or refer to „all assets” owned by the debtor. Once the security agreement has been created, it must be attached. To be considered „secure”, the agreement must be perfected. These terms and conditions are described in detail below. In addition, the agreement must be certified, ideally before a notary or witnesses (or both). The security agreement is a document that serves as the basis for a security right in assets and must be agreed upon between the parties. In this context, it may seem obvious that the grant of a security right is intended by the parties to the document. This statement must be as precise as possible. While it is not necessarily true that specific wording is required, the simplest way to satisfy this requirement is to include the language in which the debtor „grants a security right in the asset described in the agreement”. This wording is sufficiently clear to confirm the intention to grant a security right in the asset.
These three elements are mandatory requirements for an appropriate security agreement, without which the creditor cannot have a valid and enforceable security right in the asset covered by the agreement. Although most parties prefer to perfect a security via the UCC-1 deposit form, it is also possible to achieve perfection if the secured party has the security. The exception: Ownership does not apply to intangible assets, such as . B receivables. Since many debtors prefer to continue using or owning collateral, this approach is not common. The borrower may have limited options to provide collateral that would satisfy lenders. Even if a security agreement grants only a partial security right in the property, lenders may be reluctant to offer financing for the property. The possibility of cross-collateralization would remain, forcing the liquidity of the property to attempt to release its value and compensate lenders.