BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Noreen Evans, Chair 2011-2012 Regular Session SB 12 (Corbett) As Amended January 4, 2012 Hearing Date: January 10, 2012 Fiscal: No Urgency: No RD SUBJECT Uniform Commercial Code: Bulk Sales DESCRIPTION Existing law, the Uniform Commercial Code-Bulk Sales Law (California bulk sales law), governs bulk sales, as defined, where the seller's principal business is for the sale of inventory from stock, as specified, or that of a restaurant owner, and where the seller is located in California, as specified, on the date of the bulk sale agreement. The California bulk sales law imposes certain requirements upon the buyer in a bulk sale subject to the statute. Among these is that the buyer must provide notice to the seller's creditors that the bulk sale is taking place, as specified. In the event of non-compliance, the California bulk sales law provides that, subject to the good faith exception and specified limitations, a buyer is liable for damages in the amount of the claim, reduced by any amount that the claimant would not have realized if the buyer had complied. This bill would repeal California's bulk sales law and make other conforming changes. BACKGROUND In the late-19th century, territories across the United States experienced a need for laws that would protect creditors from merchants who, all too frequently, would acquire inventory on credit and later sell all or a substantial part of that merchandise in bulk, thereafter absconding with the proceeds without ever paying their debts. Creditors were often left with (more) SB 12 (Corbett) Page 2 of ? no recourse, having neither any protections nor remedies available at common law in these situations, nor any feasible mechanism to locate fleeing sellers. For example, Owner A sells his convenience store to Buyer B and then leaves town without ever having settled his debts with Creditor C. Under the bulk sales law, Creditor C could then sue Buyer B for not applying the bulk sales law and providing notice to Creditor C that the transaction was occurring. Compounding the problem was the limited framework of the era's fraudulent conveyance law, which would only afford its protections if there was collusion between the seller and buyer. (See Revised Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 6 (1989 Official Text), Prefatory Note, pg. 4 < http://www.lawrev.state.nj.us/rpts/ucc6.pdf > Ýas of Dec. 30, 2011]; Lisa M. Bruno, "Is Bulk Sales Legislation Still Necessary," 1997 Det. C.L. Rev. 1091, 1091-1092.) To address this "bulk sale risk," one by one, each state began adopting bulk sales laws, eventually giving rise to Article 6 of the UCC. The central purpose of these laws was to give the merchant's creditors notice that a bulk sale is taking place in order to afford them an opportunity to satisfy their claims before the merchant can sell its assets to a buyer and disappear with the proceeds of the sale without ever paying back its creditors. (See generally 4 Witkin, Sum. Cal. Law (10th Ed. 2010) Sales, Sec. 219; see also Reed v. Anglo Scandinavian Corporation (1969) 298 F. Supp. 310, 313 (citations omitted).) Except as otherwise provided, California's bulk sales law applies to a bulk sale (a sale not in the ordinary course of business and for half or more of the seller's inventory and equipment, as measured by value on the date of the bulk sale agreement) if the seller's principal business is the sale of inventory from stock, including those who manufacture what they sell, or that of a restaurant owner and, on the date of the bulk sale agreement, the seller is located in California, or if located in a jurisdiction outside the U.S., the seller's major executive U.S. office is in California. (See U. Com. Code Secs. 6101-6111.) Since the original enactment of bulk sales legislation, the legal landscape has evolved such that there are numerous laws affording rights and remedies to creditors, including the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, as well as a national Bankruptcy Code, and a UCC article providing for secured transactions (Article 9; Division 9 in California). Moreover, SB 12 (Corbett) Page 3 of ? modern technologies in conjunction with long-arm statutes make it increasingly feasible for creditors to find and bring absconding merchants back under the state's jurisdiction. Thus, starting in 1988, recognizing the substantial obligations, costs, and risks placed on buyers in bulk sales by the original UCC Article 6 and the difficulty of complying with Article 6 in multi-state transactions due to so many states' non-uniform amendments, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) and the American Law Institute (ALI) studied Article 6 and its relationship to other creditors' rights statutes. By 1989, they jointly recommended a repeal of the bulk sales law ("Alternative A"). (See Revised UCC Article 6 (1989 Official Text), Prefatory Note, pgs. 4, 6 < http://www.lawrev.state.nj.us/rpts/ucc6.pdf > Ýas of Dec. 30, 2011].) In recognition that some states would be disinclined to repeal the law altogether, and in order to create a uniform version of the law for those states, NCCUSL and ALI also approved a revised UCC Article 6 ("Alternative B") that was designed to afford better protection to creditors while minimizing the impediments to good-faith transactions, as well as reintroduce uniformity into the area. (See id. at 6.) Since then, 47 states have repealed their bulk sales laws. California is one of only four remaining jurisdictions in the U.S. to retain a bulk sales law, having selected to adopt a non-uniform version of Alternative B in 1990. (AB 3653 (Harris, Ch. 1191, Stats. 1990).) Although California enacted the "Alternative B" approach, it ultimately adopted it in a non-uniform way and extensively modified it in order to retain many features of the original version. (Witkin, Sum. Cal. Law (10th Ed. 2010) Sales, Sec. 219.) As a result, the California Commercial Code Division 6 differs from the 1989 revised UCC Article 6 in significant aspects. California's law covers a broader range of sales, contains a narrower exception for buyers' good faith and commercially reasonable attempts to comply, has more stringent requirements for certain transactions involving $2 million or less, and lacks the "policing" section of the UCC law which provides a required schedule of distribution. (CEB California UCC Sales and Leases, Secs. 14.42-14.47.) This bill, sponsored by the California Commission on Uniform State Laws, would repeal California's bulk sales law in its SB 12 (Corbett) Page 4 of ? entirety, remove any references to bulk sales throughout other code sections, and make other conforming, non-substantive changes. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW 1.Existing law , the Uniform Commercial Code - Bulk Sales (California bulk sales law) governs bulk sales transactions in the state. (U. Com. Code Secs. 6101-6111.) Existing law defines "bulk sale" as either: in the case of a sale by auction or a sale or series of sales conducted by a liquidator on the seller's behalf, a sale or series of sales, not in the ordinary course of the seller's business, of more than half of the seller's inventory and equipment, as measured by a value on the date of the bulk-sale agreement; or in all other cases, as a sale not in the ordinary course of the seller's business of more than half the seller's inventory and equipment, as measured by value on the date of the bulk-sale agreement. (U. Com. Code Sec. 6102(a)(3).) Existing law defines "assets" as the inventory and equipment that is the subject of a bulk sale and any tangible and intangible personal property used or held for the use primarily in, or arising from, the seller's business and sold in connection with that inventory or equipment, except as specified. (U. Com. Code Sec. 6102(a)(1).) Existing law applies, except as otherwise provided, if: the seller's principal business is the sale of inventory from stock, including those who manufacture what they sell, or that of a restaurant owner; and on the date of the bulk sale agreement the seller is located in this state, as defined, or if the seller is located in a jurisdiction outside the U.S., the seller's major executive U.S. office is in this state. (U. Com. Code Sec. 6103(a).) Existing law exempts 16 categories of sales to which the California bulk sales law would otherwise apply, including any sale of assets that has a value of less than $10,000 or over $5,000,000 as of the date of the bulk sale agreement. (U. Com. Code Sec. 6103(c).) SB 12 (Corbett) Page 5 of ? Existing law requires a buyer to a bulk sale transaction to do the following upon determining that the California bulk sales law applies to the transaction: obtain from the seller a list of all business names and addresses used by the seller within three years before the date the list is sent or delivered to the buyer; give notice of the bulk sale, as specified; and comply with the specified section pertaining to sales for consideration of $2 million or less and substantially all in cash or an obligation of the buyer to pay the seller cash in the future, or a combination thereof, if the bulk sale is within the scope of that section. (U. Com. Code Sec. 6104). Existing law provides that the notice must: state that a bulk sale is about to be made; state the name and business address of the seller together with any other business name and address listed by the seller, as specified, and the name and business address of the buyer; state the location and general description of the assets; state the place and the anticipated date of the bulk sale; and state whether or not the bulk sale is subject to provisions relating to sales of $2 million or less, as specified, and, if so subject, state the matters required under a specified provision. (U. Com. Code Sec. 6105(a).) Existing law requires buyers at least 12 business days before the bulk sale date to: record the notice in the county recorder's office in the county or counties where the assets are located and, if different, in the county in which the seller is located; publish the notice at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the judicial district where the assets are located and in the judicial district, if different, in which the seller is located, as specified, if in either case there is one, and if none, then in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the judicial district is located; and provide the notice by registered or certified mail to the county tax collector in the county or counties where the assets are located. (U. Com. Code Sec. 6105(b).) Existing law provides detailed procedures for bulk sales of $2 SB 12 (Corbett) Page 6 of ? million or less that are substantially all cash or an obligation of the buyer to pay cash in the future to the seller or a combination thereof. Within such transactions, existing law provides specific procedures for disputed claims, and claims involving escrow, including cases in which the cash deposited or agreed to be deposited is not sufficient to cover the claims filed with the escrow agent. (U. Com. Code Secs. 6106.2, 6106.4.) Existing law includes specific procedures for bulk sales involving auctions, and clarifies that the "buyer" is the auctioneer or liquidator. (U. Com. Code Sec. 6108.) Existing law provides that, subject to the good faith exception and specified limitations, a buyer who fails to comply with the above requirements is liable for damages in the amount of the claim, reduced by any amount that the claimant would not have realized if the buyer had complied. (U. Com. Code Sec. 6107(a).) Existing law provides that a buyer who can prove a good faith and commercially reasonable effort to comply with specified bulk sales law requirements, above, or to exclude the sale from the application of the bulk sales law under one of the 16 exemptions, is not liable to creditors for failure to comply with those requirements. (U. Com. Code Sec. 6107(c).) Existing law provides that failure to comply with specified requirements does not: impair the buyer's rights in or title to the assets; render the sale ineffective, void, or voidable; entitle a creditor to more than a single satisfaction of its claim; or create liability other than as provided in this division. (U. Com. Code Sec. 6107(h).) Existing law provides that payment of the buyer's liability, as specified, discharges to that extent the seller's debt to the creditor. (U. Com. Code Sec. 6017(i).) Existing law further grants the buyer, unless otherwise agreed, with an immediate right of reimbursement from the seller for any amount paid to a creditor in partial or total satisfaction of the buyer's liability. (U. Com. Code Sec. 6107(j).) Existing law provides for a one year statute of limitations, as of the date of the bulk sale, except as provided. (U. Com. SB 12 (Corbett) Page 7 of ? Code Sec. 6110.) This bill would repeal the above-described provisions. 1.Existing law , the Commercial Code, lists the divisions governing the rights of other purchasers of goods and lien creditors, including bulk transfers (Division 6). (U. Com. Code Sec. 2403.) This bill would remove the reference to bulk transfers from the above section. 2.Existing law , the Business and Professions Code's Fair Practices of Equipment Manufacturers, Distributors, Wholesalers, and Dealers Act (Dealers Act), contains reference to and defines "bulk sales law." (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 22901(b).) Existing law , the Dealers Act, specifies procedures by which a supplier shall repurchase inventory whenever a dealer contract is terminated by cancellation or nonrenewal and, in doing so, clarifies that any repurchase shall not be subject to the provisions of the bulk sales law or to the claims of any secured or unsecured creditors of the supplier or any assignee of the supplier until such time as the dealer has received full payment or credit. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 22905(m).) Existing law , the Dealers Act, specifies procedures for repurchase in the event of the death or incapacity of the dealer, and specifically provides that any repurchase under that section shall not be subject to the provisions of the bulk sales law. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 22924(b).) Existing law , the Business and Professions Code's Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (ABC Act), provides that it shall not be a violation or grounds for disciplinary action for a licensee selling alcoholic beverages to extend credit to or receive payment from a holder of an interim operating permit unless the seller has knowledge that the purchaser was operating under an interim operating license, as shown by specified evidence such as the holder having recorded or published notice pursuant to the existing bulk sales law. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 24044.5(f).) Existing law , the ABC Act, provides that it shall not be a violation or grounds for disciplinary action for a licensee SB 12 (Corbett) Page 8 of ? selling alcoholic beverages to extend credit to or receive payment from a holder of a temporary permit unless the seller has knowledge that the purchaser was operating under a temporary permit, as shown by specified evidence such as the holder having recorded or published notice pursuant to the existing bulk sales law. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 24045.5(d).) This bill strikes all references to bulk sales and bulk sales law in the above sections, and makes other non-substantive, conforming changes. 3.Existing law provides that no right to attach order or writ of attachment may be issued unless it appears from the facts shown by affidavit that great or irreparable injury would result to the plaintiff if issuance of the order were delayed until the matter could be heard on notice. Existing law also provides that this requirement may be satisfied by showing that a bulk sales notice has been recorded and published pursuant to the bulk sales law with respect to a bulk transfer by the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc. Secs. 485.010(a), 485.010(b)(3).) This bill removes the above provision relating to a bulk sales notice as a satisfactory showing that great or irreparable injury would result under that section. 4.Existing law , in relevant part, permits the tax collector to seize any property which is assessed on the unsecured roll and is advertised for sale pursuant to the bulk sales law. (Rev. & Tax. Code Sec. 2953.1.) This bill would remove the above reference to the bulk sales law. SB 12 (Corbett) Page 9 of ? COMMENT 1. Stated need for the bill According to the author, This bill repeals provisions in the UCC Article 6 ÝBulk Sales], and eliminates references to Article 6 in statute. ÝIn doing so, it] also conforms this practice to 47 other states in the union, and its repeal would be in line with recommendations made by the Uniform Law Commission. Article 6 imposes a series of harsh punishments for a failure to comply. A buyer that fails to comply with the notification provisions is liable to creditors of the seller for damages equal to the amount that the creditors would have been entitled to receive had there been compliance, unless the buyer can prove that it actually made good faith and commercially reasonable efforts to comply. To comply with Article 6, a buyer in bulk from a California merchant must make as many as 40 determinations in order to accurately assess whether Article 6 applies. Today, Article 9 of the UCC allows a creditor to secure creditor's claims with the merchandise and its proceeds, or identifiable cash process in the case of junior inventory secured parties, via an Article 9 security interest. Bulk sales account only 1% of all transactions. Further, it has become standard business practice for many buyers and sellers in California knowingly not to comply with the California Bulk Sales Law. This practice has developed because parties view compliance with the California Bulk Sales Law as burdensome. To address the risks, parties often negotiate specially designed representations and warranties, indemnification provisions, holdbacks, and set-offs. 2. Creditors' rights and their available remedies under existing state and federal law This bill would repeal the California bulk sale law which was primarily directed at providing creditors with protections against fraudulent acts of merchants by imposing requirements on buyers and attaching liability for their noncompliance. This raises the policy question of whether California should continue to impose liability on buyers in these sales given the modern circumstances described below. SB 12 (Corbett) Page 10 of ? While the absence of other protections and remedies at law in the late-19th and early-20th centuries made it such that the benefits to creditors appeared to justify the costs of interfering with good faith transactions and the unfairness of imposing liability on buyers who otherwise had no relationship to the seller's creditors, the circumstances have since changed-both in terms of technologies and the law. First, given changes in technology and the accessibility of credit reporting services at little cost, creditors are more than adequately equipped to make informed decisions about whether to extend credit to a party, not to mention to physically track down the absconding seller. Second, the legal void out of which the bulk sales laws originally grew has since been filled with numerous laws that afford creditors with greater opportunities to collect their debts. For example, California's long-arm statute extends jurisdiction of its courts as broadly as the Constitution will allow. That statute would permit an absconding seller who has had minimum contacts with this state, upon reasonable notice of the action against him or her, to be brought into a California court by a creditor under available remedies at law. Under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), creditors also have remedies if a bulk sale is fraudulent, not just where the transferee (buyer) is in collusion with the seller, but also where the transferor (seller) actively defrauded his creditor, or accepted less than adequate consideration, as specified. (See Civ. Code Secs. 3439.94(a); 3439.05 for what constitutes a fraudulent transfer under the UFTA.) Importantly, the protections contained in the UFTA are much broader than those of the bulk sales law and, in the event of a repeal of the bulk sales law, creditors would be more than likely able to avail themselves of the UFTA remedies when left without satisfaction of their debts by an absconding seller. Creditors also have protections under the Bankruptcy Code which allows them to avoid any transfer of the debtor's property made within two years before the date of the bankruptcy petition where the debtor voluntarily or involuntarily engaged in actual or constructive fraud, as defined. (See 11 U.S.C. Sec. 548; see also UCC Committee Report pg. 10.) This body of law appears to provide creditors both protections and equitable rights that would also apply to certain bad-acting sellers in bulk sales. (See 11 U.S.C. Secs. 544(a)(1)-(2); 547(b).) Division 9 of the Commercial Code (California's version of UCC Article 9) also SB 12 (Corbett) Page 11 of ? extends protections to creditors to the extent that it permits them to secure the financing they provide to the merchant by some or all of the merchant's assets. (See UCC Committee Report pgs. 9-10.) Unlike with the bulk sales law, Division 9 gives the creditor leverage to require that the merchant pay all amounts owed before granting the release of any such security interest and letting the sale move forth. Thus, the evolution of laws in conjunction with the considerations discussed under Comment 3(b) arguably diminish the original justification for imposing the obligations and costs, as well as the liability resulting from these laws, on a bona fide buyer in bulk sales. As for those buyers in collusion with the seller, there are and have always been laws to provide creditors remedies against such collusion between the parties in these sales. Furthermore, Committee staff notes that the intent of the bulk sales laws was never to address bad-acting buyers, but instead was to impose liability on all buyers to provide creditors protection against and recourse for any harm that results to them from the fleeing seller's wrongdoings. (See Background for the law's original intent.) 3. California bulk sales law in practice According to the proponents of this bill, the law that this bill seeks to repeal has proven burdensome and costly, as was its predecessor-factors that largely contributed to NCCUSL and ALI's recommendation to repeal the law. While it may be important to protect creditors under certain circumstances, a policy question raised by this bill is whether the obligations imposed by the bulk sale law continue to be necessary to protect creditors in California. a. Whether existing requirements imposed on buyers in bulk sales remain appropriate The obligation, costs, and any resulting liability of bulk sales laws has been placed on buyers in bulk sales transactions because of how those laws evolved. With the modernization of both the legal landscape and available technologies in the years since, the justification for imposing such obligations on buyers in bulk is diminished and is further undermined by the questionable benefits conferred upon the creditors, as described in Comment 3(b), below. Proponents argue that the issues relating to even the scope of SB 12 (Corbett) Page 12 of ? the California bulk sales law are difficult for buyers to ascertain in and of themselves. The UCC Committee Report points to three main features of the law to exemplify this point. First, to determine whether the sale is even subject to the California bulk sale law, the buyer must establish, among other things, whether the sale is outside the "ordinary course of the seller's business" as defined by the bulk sale law. Such an analysis, it concludes, involves both a factual and legal assessment, at the end of which there may still be no clear answer. Second, the buyer must determine if the sale is for more than half of the seller's inventory and equipment. The answer to this otherwise simple question can differ greatly. Thirdly, the UCC Committee points to the sometimes difficult issue surrounding whether the seller is a type of seller that falls under the scope of the bulk sales law. Many sellers, especially in today's market, are in more than one line of business and, to determine what category of seller the party is and whether the bulk sales law applies, the buyer may need to conduct a thorough investigation of facts-an investigation that often will rely primarily on receiving accurate representations from the seller about his or her business. (See UCC Committee Report, pg. 6.) Similarly, Committee staff notes that while much of the information that needs to be gathered and issues that need to be addressed appear relatively simple, and may in fact prove to be so in some cases, the ultimate assessments by the buyer may rely at least in part, if not in whole, on the potentially wrong-doing seller being honest with the buyer about information that the seller controls. b. Whether existing law's benefits to the creditor justify the obligations imposed on buyers in bulk sales The UCC Committee concluded in its report that the bulk sales law ultimately does not afford valuable protections to creditors, particularly given the other existing law protections described in Comment 2. For example, while the creditor does receive advance notice of a pending sale, and may be able to take some action to protect itself (e.g. ceasing any future advances of inventory or credit to the seller), the bulk sale law does not provide him or her assistance in collecting money already owed at the time he or she receives notice of the pending sale. The bulk sales law does not confer any special rights unless it is a sale of $2 million or less for substantially all cash or an obligation of SB 12 (Corbett) Page 13 of ? the buyer to pay cash in the future, or a combination of both, at which point the escrow features of the law apply. The California Bulk sales law itself does not confer any right of pre-sale attachment of the assets upon receiving notice, or a right to injunction to stop the bulk sale. Thus, the UCC Committee has concluded that "unless payment is being made through escrow, an unpaid creditor's rights under the California Bulk Sale Law are no different than the rights that the creditor would have had without the California Bulk Sales Law." (See UCC Committee Report, pg. 8.) Moreover, some might argue that the benefit to creditors could potentially be greater where the buyer does not comply with the law because the liability of a buyer is contingent upon whether the buyer applied the bulk sales act as necessary and whether he complied with its requirements-not whether the seller is solvent and pays his creditors for his debts. In the event of noncompliance, in absence of a determination that the buyer made a good faith and commercially reasonable effort, the buyer is liable to the creditor for the amount of the claim less anything he or she would not have received had there been compliance. (U. Com. Code Sec. 6107(a).) To illustrate, where the risk of a nonpaying seller is real, assuming the buyer is insolvent or that the risk is actualized and the seller does not settle his debts with the creditor, the only way the creditor could potentially have benefitted from the provisions of the bulk sales law is if there was noncompliance on the part of the buyer. Where the buyer complies, the creditor would receive notice under the bulk sales law, but would find that the same law affords him or her no tools to compel the seller to pay the debts. This suggests that the benefits to creditors under the bulk sales law are minimal at best, thereby making it difficult to justify the imposition of extensive obligations on buyers, especially where other laws would provide creditors with greater protections. Support : None Known Opposition : None Known HISTORY Source : California Commission on Uniform State Laws SB 12 (Corbett) Page 14 of ? Related Pending Legislation : None Known Prior Legislation : AB 3653 (Chapter 1191, Statutes of 1990, Harris) See Background. **************