Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9206 (2026)

Security interest arising in purchase or delivery of financial asset.

✓ 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

440.9206 Security interest arising in purchase or delivery of financial asset.

Sec. 9206.

(1) A security interest in favor of a securities intermediary attaches to a person's security entitlement if 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 the securities intermediary credits the financial asset to the buyer's securities account before the buyer pays the securities intermediary.

(2) The security interest described in subsection (1) secures the person's obligation to pay for the financial asset.

(3) 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 both of the following are met:

(a) The security or other financial asset in the ordinary course of business is transferred by delivery with any necessary indorsement or assignment, and is delivered under an agreement between persons in the business of dealing with the securities or financial assets.

(b) The agreement calls for delivery against payment.

(4) The security interest described in subsection (3) secures the obligation to make payment for the delivery.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 1964, Act 250, Eff. Aug. 28, 1964 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 348, Eff. July 1, 2001

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1986–2017 · leading case: Marcia Meoli v. The Huntington Nat'l Bank, 848 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Marcia Meoli v. The Huntington Nat'l Bank, 848 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 2017). “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9206 cmt. 2. In short, Cyberco retained dominion and control over its deposits, despite Huntington’s security interest in them, and Cyberco could use its money and other assets however it wanted to.”

Cessna Fin. Corp. v. Warmus, 407 N.W.2d 66 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “MCL 440.9206; MSA 19.9206 provides: Subject to any statute or decision which establishes a different rule for buyers or lessees of consumer goods, an agreement by a buyer or lessee that he will not assert against an assignee any claim or defense which he may have against the…”

Union Mut. Life Ins. v. Chrysler Corp., 793 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1986). “See Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.9206(1) (“an agreement by a .”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9206(1) — 1 case

Union Mut. Life Ins. v. Chrysler Corp., 793 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1986). “See Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 440.9206(1) (“an agreement by a .”

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.