O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-9-305 (2019)

Law governing perfection and priority of security interests in investment property

✓ 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) Governing law; general rules. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, the following rules apply:

(1) While a security certificate is located in a jurisdiction, the local law of that jurisdiction governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in the certificated security represented thereby;

(2) The local law of the issuer’s jurisdiction as specified in subsection (d) of Code Section 11-8-110 governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in an uncertificated security;

(3) The local law of the securities intermediary’s jurisdiction as specified in subsection (e) of Code Section 11-8-110 governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in a security entitlement or securities account; and

(4) The local law of the commodity intermediary’s jurisdiction governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in a commodity contract or commodity account.

(b) Commodity intermediary’s jurisdiction. The following rules determine a commodity intermediary’s jurisdiction for purposes of this part:

(1) If an agreement between the commodity intermediary and commodity customer governing the commodity account expressly provides that a particular jurisdiction is the commodity intermediary’s jurisdiction for purposes of this part, this article, or this title, that jurisdiction is the commodity intermediary’s jurisdiction;

(2) If paragraph (1) of this subsection does not apply and an agreement between the commodity intermediary and commodity customer governing the commodity account expressly provides that the agreement is governed by the law of a particular jurisdiction, that jurisdiction is the commodity intermediary’s jurisdiction;

(3) If neither paragraph (1) nor (2) of this subsection applies and an agreement between the commodity intermediary and commodity customer governing the commodity account expressly provides that the commodity account is maintained at an office in a particular jurisdiction, that jurisdiction is the commodity intermediary’s jurisdiction;

(4) If none of the preceding paragraphs of this subsection applies, the commodity intermediary’s jurisdiction is the jurisdiction in which the office identified in an account statement as the office serving the commodity customer’s account is located; and

(5) If none of the preceding paragraphs of this subsection applies, the commodity intermediary’s jurisdiction is the jurisdiction in which the chief executive office of the commodity intermediary is located.

(c) When perfection governed by law of jurisdiction where debtor located. The local law of the jurisdiction in which the debtor is located governs:

(1) Perfection of a security interest in investment property by filing;

(2) Automatic perfection of a security interest in investment property created by a broker or securities intermediary; and

(3) Automatic perfection of a security interest in a commodity contract or commodity account created by a commodity intermediary.

History

Code 1981, § 11-9-305, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 362, § 1.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 68A Am. Jur. 2d, Secured Transactions, §§ 75-84, 841. C.J.S. 82 C.J.S., Statutes, § 309.

U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 9305.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1987–1991 · leading case: Dent v. Assocs. Equity Servs. Co. (In Re Dent), 130 B.R. 623 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1991).
Dent v. Assocs. Equity Servs. Co. (In Re Dent), 130 B.R. 623 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1991). · cites it 4× “The escrow account was maintained by Associates, not by the debtor.”
First Am. Bank & Trust Co. of Athens v. Harris (In Re Stewart), 74 B.R. 350 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1987). · cites it 8× “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-305 (1982). Under Georgia law, the Court concludes that Plaintiff had a perfected security interest in the diamond ring prior to the release of the diamond ring to Debtor under the document executed on September 14, 1984.”
Dabney v. Info. Exch., Inc. (In Re Info. Exch., Inc.), 98 B.R. 603 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1989). · cites it 4× “A security interest in letters of credit, goods, instruments, money, negotiable documents, or chattel paper may be perfected by possession of the collateral pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 11-9-305. As to security interests which cannot be perfected by possession pursuant to § 11-9-305,…”
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.