§ 28-9-801

Definitions. In this part: (1) 'Applicability date' means July 1, 2013. (2) '2012 Act' means the Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 Amendments Act of 2012 [D.C. Law 19-302]. (May 1, 2013, D.C. Law 19-302, § 2(s), 60 DCR 2688.) Editor's Notes Applicability of D.C. Law 19-302: Section 4 of D.C. Law 19-302 provided that the act shall apply as of July 1, 2013. Uniform Commercial Code Comment These transition provisions largely track the provisions of Part 7, which govern the transition to the 1998 revision of this Article. The Comments to the sections of Part 7 generally are relevant to the corresponding sections of Part 8. The 2010 amendments are less far-reaching than the 1998 revision. Although Part 8 does not carry forward those Part 7 provisions that clearly would have no application to the transition to the amendments, as a matter of prudence Part 8 does carry forward all Part 7 provisions that are even arguably relevant to the transition. The most significant transition problem raised by the 2010 amendments arises from changes to Section 9-503(a), concerning the name of the debtor that must be provided for a financing statement to be sufficient.

gnificant transition problem raised by the 2010 amendments arises from changes to Section 9-503(a), concerning the name of the debtor that must be provided for a financing statement to be sufficient. Sections 9-805 and 9-806 address this problem. Example: On November 8, 2012, Debtor, an individual whose 'individual name' is 'Lon Debtor' and whose principal residence is located in State A, creates a security interest in certain manufacturing equipment. On November 15, 2012, SP perfects a security interest in the equipment under Article 9 (as in effect prior to the 2010 amendments) by filing a financing statement against 'Lon Debtor' in the State A filing office. On July 1, 2013, the 2010 amendments, including Alternative A to Section 9-503(a), take effect in State A. Debtor’s unexpired State A driver’s license indicates that Debtor’s name is 'Polonius Debtor.' Assuming that a search under 'Polonius Debtor' using the filing office’s standard search logic would not disclose the filed financing statement, the financing statement would be insufficient under amended Section 9-503(a)(4) (Alt. A).

ius Debtor' using the filing office’s standard search logic would not disclose the filed financing statement, the financing statement would be insufficient under amended Section 9-503(a)(4) (Alt. A). However, Section 9-805(b) provides that the 2010 amendments do not render the financing statement ineffective. Rather, the financing statement remains effective—even if it has become seriously misleading—until it would have ceased to be effective had the amendments not taken effect. See Section 9-805(b)(1). SP can continue the effectiveness of the financing statement by filing a continuation statement with the State A filing office. To do so, however, SP must amend Debtor’s name on the financing statement to provide the name that is sufficient under Section 9-503(a)(4) (Alt. A) at the time the continuation statement is filed. See Section 9-805(c), (e). The most significant transition problem addressed by the 1998 revision arose from the change in the choice-of-law rules governing where to file a financing statement. The 2010 amendments do not change the choice-of-law rules. Even so, the amendments will change the place to file in a few cases, because certain entities that were not

to file a financing statement. The 2010 amendments do not change the choice-of-law rules. Even so, the amendments will change the place to file in a few cases, because certain entities that were not previously classified as 'registered organizations' would fall within that category under the amendments.