Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.8403 (2026)

Demand; effect; notification; period of time; liability of issuer.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE


Act 174 of 1962


440.8403 Demand; effect; notification; period of time; liability of issuer.

Sec. 8403.

    (1)  A person who is an appropriate person to make an indorsement or originate an instruction may demand that the issuer not register transfer of a security by communicating to the issuer a notification that identifies the registered owner and the issue of which the security is a part and provides an address for communications directed to the person making the demand. The demand is effective only if it is received by the issuer at a time and in a manner affording the issuer reasonable opportunity to act on it.

    (2) If a certificated security in registered form is presented to an issuer with a request to register transfer or an instruction is presented to an issuer with a request to register transfer of an uncertificated security after a demand that the issuer not register transfer has become effective, the issuer shall promptly communicate to the person who initiated the demand at the address provided in the demand and the person who presented the security for registration of transfer or initiated the instruction requesting registration of transfer a notification stating all of the following:

    (a) The certificated security has been presented for registration of transfer or instruction for registration of transfer of uncertificated security has been received.

    (b) A demand that the issuer not register transfer had previously been received.

    (c) The issuer will withhold registration of transfer for a period of time stated in the notification in order to provide the person who initiated the demand an opportunity to obtain legal process or an indemnity bond.

    (3) The period described in subsection (2)(c) may not exceed 30 days after the date of communication of the notification. A shorter period may be specified by the issuer if it is not manifestly unreasonable.

    (4) An issuer is not liable to a person who initiated a demand that the issuer not register transfer for any loss the person suffers as a result of registration of a transfer pursuant to an effective indorsement or instruction if the person who initiated the demand does not, within the time stated in the issuer's communication, do either of the following:

    (a) Obtain an appropriate restraining order, injunction, or other process from a court of competent jurisdiction enjoining the issuer from registering the transfer.

    (b) File with the issuer an indemnity bond, sufficient in the issuer's judgment to protect the issuer and any transfer agent, registrar, or other agent of the issuer involved from any loss it or they may suffer by refusing to register the transfer.

    (5) This section does not relieve an issuer from liability for registering transfer pursuant to an indorsement or instruction that was not effective.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 1987, Act 16, Imd. Eff. Apr. 24, 1987 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 278, Imd. Eff. July 27, 1998

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1966–1986 · leading case: Motobecane Am., Ltd. v. Patrick Petroleum Co., 600 F. Supp. 1419 (E.D. Mich. 1985).
Motobecane Am., Ltd. v. Patrick Petroleum Co., 600 F. Supp. 1419 (E.D. Mich. 1985). · cites it 12× “§ 440.8403, the pertinent portions of which provide as follows: Sec.”
E. F. Hutton & Co. v. Mfrs. Nat'l Bank of Detroit, 259 F. Supp. 513 (E.D. Mich. 1966). “Laws 1948, § 440.8403 [P.A.1962, No. 174] reads: “An issuer to whom a security is presented for registration is under a duty to inquire into adverse claims if (a) a written notification of an adverse claim is received at a time and in a manner which affords the issuer a…”
Motobecane Am., Ltd. v. Patrick Petroleum Co., 791 F.2d 1248 (6th Cir. 1986). · cites it 3× “Whether the district court erred in believing that plaintiff relied upon Mich. Comp.Laws § 440.8403 as the sole source of an obligation imposed upon defendants to notify Motobecane of events compromising Motobecane’s security interest.”
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.