O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-9-107 (2019)

Control of letter of credit right

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A secured party has control of a letter of credit right to the extent of any right to payment or performance by the issuer or any nominated person if the issuer or nominated person has consented to an assignment of proceeds of the letter of credit under subsection (c) of Code Section 11-5-114 or otherwise applicable law or practice.

History

Code 1981, § 11-9-107, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 362, § 1.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 9107.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1983–2000 · leading case: Franklin v. ITT Fin. Servs. (In Re Franklin), 75 B.R. 268 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Franklin v. ITT Fin. Servs. (In Re Franklin), 75 B.R. 268 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1986). · cites it 8× “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-107 (1982). Because Respondent was not the seller of the wall unit that serves as collateral for the November 27, 1985, security agreement, section 11-9-107(b) must be used to determine the nature of Respondent’s security interest in the wall unit.”
Hipps v. Landmark Fin. Servs. of Georgia, Inc. (In Re Hipps), 89 B.R. 264 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1988). · cites it 4× “To do otherwise would lead to an accounting nightmare in determining when the purchase money security interest was paid in full and would go against the statutory language contained in O.C.G.A. § 11-9-107. Therefore, the Court holds that Respondent lost its purchase money…”
Schneider v. Fid. Nat'l Bank (In Re Schneider), 37 B.R. 747 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1984). · cites it 2× “§ 109A-9-107 (Harrison, 1979) [currently OCGA § 11-9-107 (Michie, 1982)]. This original note, however, was refinanced on October 21, 1981.”
Corim, Inc. v. Belvin, 414 S.E.2d 491 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 11-9-107 (b) provides that “[a] security interest is a ‘purchase money security interest’ to the extent that it is .”
In Re Hughes, 230 B.R. 213 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1998). · cites it 4× “" O.C.G.A. § 11-9-107. Moreover, § 11-9-312(4) provides that "A purchase money security interest in collateral other than inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same collateral or its proceeds if the purchase money security interest is perfected at…”
United States v. Hooks (In Re Hooks), 40 B.R. 715 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1984). · cites it 2× “6 *720 A purchase-money security interest is defined in O.C.G.A. § 11-9-107 (Michie 1982). That section provides: A security interest is a “purchase money security interest” to the extent that it is: (a) Taken or retained by the seller of the collateral to secure all or part of…”
Southtrust Bank of Alabama, Nat'l Ass'n, Formerly Named Birmingham Trust Nat'l Bank v. Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp., a Corp., 760 F.2d 1240 (11th Cir. 1985). “Code § 7-9-107 (1975); O.C.G.A. § 11-9-107 (1981). BWAC engages in purchase money financing.”
In Re Carter, 169 B.R. 227 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1993). · cites it 6× “Ga.Code Ann. § 11-9-107 provides that: [a] security interest is a “purchase money security interest” to the extent that it is: (a) Taken or retained by the seller of the collateral to secure all or part of its price; or (b) Taken by a person who by making advances or incurring…”
Lee v. Davis/McGraw, Inc. (In Re Lee), 169 B.R. 790 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1994). · cites it 3× “§ 9-107; O.C.G.A. § 11-9-107; Ala.Code § 7-9-107. 4 .”
Barney v. Morris, 309 S.E.2d 420 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 11-9-107 (Code Ann. § 109A-9 — 107).”
First Nat'l Bank v. Atlanta Classic Cars, Inc., 363 S.E.2d 16 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, when ACC sold the vehicle to CBS on July 10, 1981, it may have reserved a purchase money security interest (OCGA § 11-9-107) in the vehicle, but title passed to CBS.”
Iron Peddlers, Inc. v. Ivie & Assocs., Inc. (In Re Ivie & Assocs., Inc.), 84 B.R. 882 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1988). · cites it 2× “Section 11-9-107. The issue, however, is whether that interest was perfected within fifteen days from the time that Ivie, the debtor, received possession of the three scrapers.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— 11-9-107(a) — 1 case
United States v. Specialty Contracting & Supply, Inc. (In Re Specialty Contracting & Supply, Inc.), 140 B.R. 922 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1992).
— 11-9-107(b) — 1 case
Franklin v. ITT Fin. Servs. (In Re Franklin), 75 B.R. 268 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1986). “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-107 (1982). Because Respondent was not the seller of the wall unit that serves as collateral for the November 27, 1985, security agreement, section 11-9-107(b) must be used to determine the nature of Respondent’s security interest in the wall unit.”
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.