Circuit split · commercial law
Whether a security agreement must explicitly refer to after-acquired property (i.e., contain an after-acquired property clause) for a security interest to attach to such property
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · December 14, 1998
“In contrast to the split of authority concerning the language needed to secure after-acquired property in a security agreement, it is well established that a financing statement need not refer explicitly to after-acquired property for an interest in such property to be perfected.” — Split of authority
Empirical analysis of this case →
The provision at issue
11 U.S.C. § 363 — Use, sale, or lease of property
“(a) In this section, “cash collateral” means cash, negotiable instruments, documents of title, securities, deposit accounts, or other cash equivalents whenever acquired in which the estate and an entity other than the estate have an interest and includes the proceeds, products, offspring, rents, or profits of property and the fees, charges, accounts or other payments for the use or occupancy of rooms and other public facilities in hotels, motels, or other lodging properties subject to a security interest as provided in section 552(b) of this …”Read the full section →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- On the other sideProvident79 B.R. 379
- On the other sideCovey80 B.R. 462
What the split turns on
- Doctrines & tests:
- after-acquired property clause ·
- continuing general lien ·
- floating charge
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.