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

O.C.G.A. § 11-9-306 (2019)

Law governing perfection and priority of security interests in letter of credit rights

✓ 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; issuer’s or nominated person’s jurisdiction. Subject to subsection (c) of this Code section, the local law of the issuer’s jurisdiction or a nominated person’s jurisdiction governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in a letter of credit right if the issuer’s jurisdiction or nominated person’s jurisdiction is a state. (b) Issuer’s or nominated person’s jurisdiction. For purposes

of this part, an issuer’s jurisdiction or nominated person’s jurisdiction is the jurisdiction whose law governs the liability of the issuer or nominated person with respect to the letter of credit right as provided in Code Section 11-5-116. (c) When Code section not applicable. This Code section does not apply to a security interest that is perfected only under subsection (d) of Code Section 11-9-308.

History

Code 1981, § 11-9-306, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 362, § 1.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 9306.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases, 1983–2003 · leading case: United States v. Hollie (In Hollie), 42 B.R. 111 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Hollie (In Hollie), 42 B.R. 111 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1984). · cites it 8× “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-306(2) (Michie 1982) provides: Except where this article otherwise provides, a security interest continues in collateral notwithstanding sale, exchange, or other disposition thereof unless the disposition was authorized by the secured party in the security…”
Tidwell v. Slocumb (In Re Georgia Steel, Inc.), 71 B.R. 903 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1987). · cites it 12× “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-306(2) (1982). In order for this section to apply, the Court must find that C & S Bank authorized a “sale, exchange, or other disposition” of the radio tower by Debtor.”
JCS Enter., Inc. v. Vanliner Ins., 489 S.E.2d 95 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 10× “See OCGA §§ 11-9-306 (1), (2); 11-9-203 (3). JCS contends this occurred as soon as the payment was otherwise payable to the Easts, and that the trial court therefore erred in concluding ‘Vanliner can pay whoever they want, whatever they want.”
In Re Rumker, 184 B.R. 621 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1995). · cites it 8× “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-306 (Michie 1994) (emphasis added).”
Loeb v. Franchise Distributors, Inc. (In Re Franchise Sys., Inc.), 46 B.R. 158 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1985). · cites it 8× “§ 11-9-306 when it consented to the sale of the equipment to the Debtor; and b) whether Georgia Bank is required to reduce its secured claim against the Estate by the amount of the certificate of deposit it holds on funds posted by the Armstrongs.”
Mann Inv. Co. v. Columbia Nitrogen Corp., 325 S.E.2d 612 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 8× “Since the trial court rightly held the document to be a sales contract which would create a security interest, however, the provisions of OCGA § 11-9-306 (2) clearly govern the original transaction and its sequelae: "Except where this article otherwise provides, a security…”
MALAGA Mgmt. Co. v. John Deere Co., 431 S.E.2d 746 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “OCGA §§ 11-9-201; 11-9-203; 11-9-301; see OCGA § 11-9-306 (2); see generally Babson &c.”
Thomas v. Ralston Purina Co. (In Re Thomas), 43 B.R. 201 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1984). · cites it 4× “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-306(2) (Michie 1982). Debtor and the Trustee argue that the “Assignment of Proceeds from the Sale of Dairy Products and Release of Security Interest” executed in late 1981 had the effect of releasing FmHA’s lien on the milk and its proceeds.”
Metter Banking Co. v. Fisher Foods, Inc., 359 S.E.2d 145 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 8× “" OCGA § 11-9-306 (1) and (2) provide that "proceeds" include whatever is received upon the sale, exchange, or other disposition of collateral or proceeds; and that "a security interest continues in collateral notwithstanding, sale, exchange or other disposition thereof unless…”
McDonald v. Ocilla Cotton Warehouse, Inc. (In Re McDonald), 224 B.R. 862 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1998). · cites it 7× “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-306(2). Further, a security interest does not attach to collateral in which the debtor has no rights.”
Provident Bank v. Morequity, Inc., 585 S.E.2d 625 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “\ MorEquity argues that former OCGA § 11-9-306 (2) applies here to effectively eliminate Provident’s security interest.”
Jones v. Small Bus. Admin. (In Re Cohutta Mills, Inc.), 108 B.R. 815 (N.D. Ga. 1989). · cites it 2× “” Ga. Code Ann. § 11-9-306 (2). In the instant case, SBA, the secured party, clearly authorized the disposition of the collateral from King’s Tuft to Cohutta Mills.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— 11-9-306(1) — 1 case
In re Chappell, 224 B.R. 507 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1998).
— 11-9-306(2) — 6 cases
United States v. Hollie (In Hollie), 42 B.R. 111 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1984). “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-306(2) (Michie 1982) provides: Except where this article otherwise provides, a security interest continues in collateral notwithstanding sale, exchange, or other disposition thereof unless the disposition was authorized by the secured party in the security…”
Tidwell v. Slocumb (In Re Georgia Steel, Inc.), 71 B.R. 903 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1987). “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-306(2) (1982). In order for this section to apply, the Court must find that C & S Bank authorized a “sale, exchange, or other disposition” of the radio tower by Debtor.”
Loeb v. Franchise Distributors, Inc. (In Re Franchise Sys., Inc.), 46 B.R. 158 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1985). “§ 11-9-306 when it consented to the sale of the equipment to the Debtor; and b) whether Georgia Bank is required to reduce its secured claim against the Estate by the amount of the certificate of deposit it holds on funds posted by the Armstrongs.”
Thomas v. Ralston Purina Co. (In Re Thomas), 43 B.R. 201 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1984). “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-306(2) (Michie 1982). Debtor and the Trustee argue that the “Assignment of Proceeds from the Sale of Dairy Products and Release of Security Interest” executed in late 1981 had the effect of releasing FmHA’s lien on the milk and its proceeds.”
McDonald v. Ocilla Cotton Warehouse, Inc. (In Re McDonald), 224 B.R. 862 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1998). “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-306(2). Further, a security interest does not attach to collateral in which the debtor has no rights.”
— 11-9-306(3) — 1 case
In re Chappell, 224 B.R. 507 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1998).
— 11-9-306(4) — 3 cases
United States v. Hollie (In Hollie), 42 B.R. 111 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1984). “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-306(2) (Michie 1982) provides: Except where this article otherwise provides, a security interest continues in collateral notwithstanding sale, exchange, or other disposition thereof unless the disposition was authorized by the secured party in the security…”
In Re Rumker, 184 B.R. 621 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1995). “O.C.G.A. § 11-9-306 (Michie 1994) (emphasis added).”
Small v. Collegedale Distributors (In re Unity Foods, Inc.), 75 B.R. 222 (D. Ga. 1987).
— 11-9-306(4)(a) — 1 case
Small v. Collegedale Distributors (In re Unity Foods, Inc.), 75 B.R. 222 (D. Ga. 1987).
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.