Nevada Revised Statutes
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.9306 (2026)
Law governing perfection and priority of security interests in letter-of-credit rights
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NRSleg.state.nv.us (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 104.9306 Law governing perfection and priority of security interests in
letter-of-credit rights.
1. Subject to subsection 3, the 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.
2. 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 NRS 104.5116.
3. This section does not apply to a security interest that is perfected only under subsection 4 of NRS 104.9308.
(Added to NRS by 1999, 303)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1985–1987 · leading case: Home Sav. Ass'n v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 708 P.2d 280 (Nev. 1985).
Home Sav. Ass'n v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 708 P.2d 280 (Nev. 1985). “NRS 104.9306; NRS 104.9308. This conclusion is dispositive of the issue of HSA’s priority, and we need not decide whether the district court erroneously held that the Veaches were not buyers in the ordinary course of business.”
In Re Figearo, 79 B.R. 914 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1987). “In addition, the court finds Haley’s security interest continued in the inventory items after the transfer to Pacific pursuant to NRS 104.9306(2) and 104.9307 (buyer’s rights on disposition of collateral under Article 9), 10 or 104.”
In Re Neatex, Inc., 77 B.R. 808 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1987). “Neatex contends that since the Remuses did not object to the sale of their collateral in the Johnson & Flynn bankruptcy,' by implication, they authorized the transfer within the meaning of NRS 104.9306(2), causing their security interest to lapse.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.9306(2): 3 cases
Home Sav. Ass'n v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 708 P.2d 280 (Nev. 1985). “NRS 104.9306; NRS 104.9308. This conclusion is dispositive of the issue of HSA’s priority, and we need not decide whether the district court erroneously held that the Veaches were not buyers in the ordinary course of business.”
In Re Figearo, 79 B.R. 914 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1987). “In addition, the court finds Haley’s security interest continued in the inventory items after the transfer to Pacific pursuant to NRS 104.9306(2) and 104.9307 (buyer’s rights on disposition of collateral under Article 9), 10 or 104.”
In Re Neatex, Inc., 77 B.R. 808 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1987). “Neatex contends that since the Remuses did not object to the sale of their collateral in the Johnson & Flynn bankruptcy,' by implication, they authorized the transfer within the meaning of NRS 104.9306(2), causing their security interest to lapse.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 104.9306(4)(b): 1 case
In Re Figearo, 79 B.R. 914 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1987). “In addition, the court finds Haley’s security interest continued in the inventory items after the transfer to Pacific pursuant to NRS 104.9306(2) and 104.9307 (buyer’s rights on disposition of collateral under Article 9), 10 or 104.”
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.