O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-9-206 (2019)

Security interest arising in purchase or delivery of financial asset

✓ 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) Security interest when person buys through securities intermediary. A security interest in favor of a securities intermediary attaches to a person’s security entitlement if:

(1) The person buys a financial asset through the securities intermediary in a transaction in which the person is obligated to pay the purchase price to the securities intermediary at the time of the purchase; and

(2) The securities intermediary credits the financial asset to the buyer’s securities account before the buyer pays the securities intermediary.

(b) Security interest secures obligation to pay for financial asset. The security interest described in subsection (a) of this Code section secures the person’s obligation to pay for the financial asset.

(c) Security interest in payment against delivery transaction. A security interest in favor of a person that delivers a certificated security or other financial asset represented by a writing attaches to the security or other financial asset if:

(1) The security or other financial asset:

(A) In the ordinary course of business is transferred by delivery with any necessary indorsement or assignment; and

(B) Is delivered under an agreement between persons in the business of dealing with such securities or financial assets; and

(2) The agreement calls for delivery against payment.

(d) Security interest secures obligation to pay for delivery. The security interest described in subsection (c) of this Code section secures the obligation to make payment for the delivery.

History

Code 1981, § 11-9-206, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 362, § 1.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 9206.

Subpart 2 Rights and Duties

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1983–1992 · leading case: Massey-Ferguson Credit Corp. v. Wiley, 655 F. Supp. 655 (M.D. Ga. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Massey-Ferguson Credit Corp. v. Wiley, 655 F. Supp. 655 (M.D. Ga. 1987). · cites it 12× “Defendant has argued that O.C.G.A. § 11-9-206, which statutorily gives plaintiff the rights of a holder in due course, does not apply unless an Article III negotiable instrument and a security agreement are taken by the assignee.”

Tidwell v. Slocumb (In Re Georgia Steel, Inc.), 71 B.R. 903 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1987). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. §§ 11-9-206, 11-9-302(2), 11-9-405, 11-9-504 (1982).”

Stenger Indus., Inc. v. Eaton Corp., 298 S.E.2d 628 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned Lessor hereby sells, transfers and assigns to Eaton Corporation all its rights, title and interest in and to the within Equipment Lease upon the *78 terms contained in the written ‘Assignment by Dealer’ most recently executed by Lessor.”

Harrison v. Massey-ferguson Credit Corp., 310 S.E.2d 544 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 11-9-206 (1) (Code Ann. § 109A-9 — 206).”

Compton Co. v. Minolta Bus. Sys., Inc., 319 S.E.2d 107 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “The trial court granted GECC’s motion for summary judgment, upholding the waiver of defense clause contained in the lease agreement, and this appeal followed.”

Walter E. Heller & Co. Se., Inc. v. Reeves Transp. Co., 299 S.E.2d 754 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “§ 109A-9 — 206 (1) (OCGA § 11-9-206 (1)). Pursuant to that section, the agreement is an effective waiver of all defenses except those “.”

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Branch, 805 F. Supp. 42 (M.D. Ga. 1992). · cites it 4× “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-206(1). In this case, the Contract contains a waiver provision as required in the statute: “You will not assert against any assignee or subsequent holder of this contract any claims, defenses, or set-offs which you may have against the seller or manufacturer of…”

— 11-9-206(1) — 2 cases

Massey-Ferguson Credit Corp. v. Wiley, 655 F. Supp. 655 (M.D. Ga. 1987). “Defendant has argued that O.C.G.A. § 11-9-206, which statutorily gives plaintiff the rights of a holder in due course, does not apply unless an Article III negotiable instrument and a security agreement are taken by the assignee.”

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Branch, 805 F. Supp. 42 (M.D. Ga. 1992). “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-206(1). In this case, the Contract contains a waiver provision as required in the statute: “You will not assert against any assignee or subsequent holder of this contract any claims, defenses, or set-offs which you may have against the seller or manufacturer of…”

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.