From above, it seems theoretically possible to conduct a receivership or controllership under an unperfected security interest and for the receiver/controller to sell collateral, provided the grantor only enters liquidation or administration after the sale. The directors may find it difficult not filing for administration to protect themselves from insolvent trading liability while a company is in receivership¹. If this risk can be mitigated and the grantor kept out of administration or liquidation while a receivership is conducted (by say the secured creditor extending a liquidity facility), the ill of an unperfected security interest vesting in the grantor upon administration or liquidation can, perhaps, be avoided.

This would only work where there are no competing perfected security interests that would themselves have priority and be able to appoint receivers/controllers and conduct a receivership/controllership in priority to holders of unperfected security interests.

However, proceeding with a receivership or controllership on the basis of an unperfected security interest is unnecessarily risky. The safest course is to simply register or otherwise perfect before the receivership or controllership commences. This is particularly so because if receivers or controllers are appointed under
a security interest which is unperfected, and then the grantor later enters administration or liquidation before
the receiver/controller sells assets, it would seem that the receivership/controllership cannot continue – the secured party who appointed the receivers/controllers cannot continue to enforce and the receivers/controllers must retire². The policy here appears to be to ensure that unperfected security interests truly vest in the grantor upon administration or liquidation, and to ensure that secured parties cannot circumvent this by simply appointing receivers or controllers under unperfected security interests early, before the grantor enters administration or liquidation.