Cal. Codes » Commercial Code / DIVISION 8. INVESTMENT SECURITIES / CHAPTER 5. Security Entitlements
California Codes

Cal. Commercial Code § 8507 (2026)

Security Entitlements

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)A securities intermediary shall comply with an entitlement order if the entitlement order is originated by the appropriate person, the securities intermediary has had reasonable opportunity to assure itself that the entitlement order is genuine and authorized, and the securities intermediary has had reasonable opportunity to comply with the entitlement order. A securities intermediary satisfies the duty if it does either of the following:

(1)The securities intermediary acts with respect to the duty as agreed upon by the entitlement holder and the securities intermediary.

(2)In the absence of agreement, the securities intermediary exercises due care in accordance with reasonable commercial standards to comply with the entitlement order.

(b)If a securities intermediary transfers a financial asset pursuant to an ineffective entitlement order, the securities intermediary shall reestablish a security entitlement in favor of the person entitled to it, and pay or credit any payments or distributions that the person did not receive as a result of the wrongful transfer. If the securities intermediary does not reestablish a security entitlement, the securities intermediary is liable to the entitlement holder for damages.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2019–2023 · leading case: Aggarwal v. Coinbase, Inc., 685 F. Supp. 3d 867 (N.D. Cal. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Julian Pollok v. the Vanguard Grp., Inc., No. 17-56814 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2019). “California Commercial Code § 8507(a) does not control because it applies only “[i]n the absence of agreement.”
Aggarwal v. Coinbase, Inc., 685 F. Supp. 3d 867 (N.D. Cal. 2023). “7 , (iv) violation of 13 California Uniform Commercial Code Division 8, Cal. Com. Code § 8507 (b), (v) bailment, 14 California Common Law and Civil Code §§ 1813, et seq.”
Cal. Commercial Code § 8507(a): 1 case
Julian Pollok v. the Vanguard Grp., Inc., No. 17-56814 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2019). “California Commercial Code § 8507(a) does not control because it applies only “[i]n the absence of agreement.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.