Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-305 (2026)

Law governing perfection and priority of security interests in investment property

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), 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 Section 75-8-110(d) 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 Section 75-8-110(e) governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in a security entitlement or securities account.
- (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) 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 the Uniform Commercial Code, that jurisdiction is the commodity intermediary's jurisdiction.
- (2) If paragraph (1) 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 paragraph (2) 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 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.
- (5) 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.

(c) 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.

Former 1972 Code § 75-9-305 [Codes, 1942, § 41A:9-305; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 9-305; Laws, 1977, ch. 452, § 17; Laws, 1990, ch. 384, § 52, 1996, ch. 460, § 26; Laws, 1996, ch. 468, § 66, eff. 7/1/1996] is now found in comparable provisions enacted at §§ 75-9-306 and 75-9-313 by Laws, 2001, ch. 495, § 1. Present § 75-9-305 was derived from former 1972 Code § 75-9-103 [Codes, 1942, § 41A:9-103; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 9-103; Laws, 1977, ch. 452 § 6, eff. 4/1/1978; Laws, 1990, ch. 384, § 47; Laws, 1996, ch. 460, § 21; Laws, 1996, ch. 468, § 56, eff. 7/1/1996] and was enacted by Laws, 2001, ch. 495, § 1, eff. 1/1/2002.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1985–1997 · leading case: TXG Intrastate Pipeline Co. v. Grossnickle, 716 So. 2d 991 (Miss. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

TXG Intrastate Pipeline Co. v. Grossnickle, 716 So. 2d 991 (Miss. 1997). “Miss.Code Ann § 75-9-305(Supp. 1997). ś 112.”

Gibson v. Manuel, 534 So. 2d 199 (Miss. 1988). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-305 (1972). What is important is that Gibson's security interest had attached and had become enforceable.”

Crosby v. Peoples Bank of Indianola, 472 So. 2d 951 (Miss. 1985). “§§ 75-3-102(l)(e) and 75-9-105(1)©] “can be perfected only by the secured party’s taking possession, _” Miss.Code Ann. § 75-9-304(1) (1972). Without contradiction, the bank never took possession of the note.”

Merchants Nat'l Bank of Vicksburg v. Bank of Mississippi, Vicksburg, 584 So. 2d 433 (Miss. 1991). “Accordingly, under Miss.Code Ann. § 75-9-305 (1972), perfection was properly accomplished by taking possession of the instrument, making filing unnecessary.”

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.