| Subsection (e) determines what is a "securities intermediary's |
| jurisdiction." The policy of subsection (b) is to ensure that a |
| securities intermediary and all of its entitlement holders can |
| look to a single, readily-identifiable body of law to determine |
| their rights and duties. Accordingly, subsection (e) sets out a |
| sequential series of tests to facilitate identification of that |
| body of law. Paragraph (1) of subsection (e) permits |
specification of the governing law securities intermediary's |
| jurisdiction by agreement. In the absence of such a |
| specification, the law chosen by the parties to govern the |
| securities account determines the securities intermediary's |
| jurisdiction.__See paragraph (2). Because the policy of this |
| section is to enable parties to determine, in advance and with |
| certainty, what law will apply to transactions governed by this |
| Article, the validation of the parties' selection of governing |
| law by agreement is not conditioned upon a determination that the |
| jurisdiction whose law is chosen bear a "reasonable relation" to |
| the transaction. See Section 4A-507; compare Section 1-105(1). |
| That is also true with respect to the similar provisions in |
subsection (d) of this section and in Section 9103(6) 9-305 |
| [Maine cite section 9-1305]. The remaining paragraphs in |
| subsection (e) contain additional default rules for determining |
| the securities intermediary's jurisdiction. |