Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 554.9305 (2026)

Law governing perfection and priority of security interests in investment property

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Governing law — general rules. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, the following rules apply:

a. 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.

b. The local law of the issuer’s jurisdiction as specified in section 554.8110, subsection 4, governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in an uncertificated security.

c. The local law of the securities intermediary’s jurisdiction as specified in section 554.8110, subsection 5, governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in a security entitlement or securities account.

d. 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.

e. Paragraphs “b”, “c”, and “d” apply even if the transaction does not bear any relation to the jurisdiction.

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

a. If an agreement between the commodity intermediary and commodity customer governing the commodity account expressly provides that a particular jurisdiction is the\n\nTue Dec 09 22:02:42 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 554 (108, 4) §554.9305, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE 168\n\ncommodity intermediary’s jurisdiction for purposes of this part, this Article, or this chapter, that jurisdiction is the commodity intermediary’s jurisdiction.

b. If paragraph “a” 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.

c. If neither paragraph “a” nor paragraph “b” 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.

d. If none of the preceding paragraphs 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.

e. If none of the preceding paragraphs applies, the commodity intermediary’s jurisdiction is the jurisdiction in which the chief executive office of the commodity intermediary is located.

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

a. perfection of a security interest in investment property by filing;

b. automatic perfection of a security interest in investment property created by a broker or securities intermediary; and

c. automatic perfection of a security interest in a commodity contract or commodity account created by a commodity intermediary. 2000 Acts, ch 1149, §25, 185, 187; 2024 Acts, ch 1023, §56 Referred to in §554.1301, 554.9301, 554.9316 \n

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1983–1990 · leading case: Cedar Rapids Meats, Inc. v. Hager (In Re Cedar Rapids Meats, Inc.), 121 B.R. 562 (Bankr. D. Iowa 1990).
Cedar Rapids Meats, Inc. v. Hager (In Re Cedar Rapids Meats, Inc.), 121 B.R. 562 (Bankr. D. Iowa 1990). · cites it 2× “Iowa Code § 554.9305 (UCC § 9-305) describes “when possession by a secured party perfects a security interest without filing.”
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Mount Pleasant Prof'l Bldg., 426 N.W.2d 126 (Iowa 1988). “See [ Iowa Code § 554.9305 ]. This possession would be sufficient to perfect security interests in the government securities.”
McFarland v. Farmers Prod. Credit Ass'n (In Re McFarland), 38 B.R. 370 (Bankr. D. Iowa 1983). · cites it 2× “Wood aside, this Court also finds that PCA’s reliance on Iowa Code § 554.9305 is misplaced. Section 554.”
In Re Schultz, 101 B.R. 68 (Bankr. D. Iowa 1989). · cites it 2× “Perfection of security interest by possession is treated *71 by Iowa Code § 554.9305 . Iowa Code § 554.9203 (l)(a) governs the attachment and enforceability requirements of security agreements.”
Merchants Nat'l Bank of Cedar Rapids v. Halberstadt, 425 N.W.2d 429 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Iowa Code § 554.9305 (1985). The security interest is perfected from the time of possession “and continues only so long as possession is retained.”
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.