LD 2245
pg. 492
Page 491 of 493 An Act to Adopt the Model Revised Article 9 Secured Transactions Page 493 of 493
Download Bill Text
LR 1087
Item 1

 
same principle as the Article 9 [Maine cite Article 9-A] priority
rule for investment property, that is, control trumps non-
control. Indeed, the most significant category of conflicting
"purchasers" may be secured parties. Priority questions for
security interests, however, are governed by the rules in Article
9 [Maine cite Article 9-A]. Subsection (c) applies only to cases
not covered by the Article 9 [Maine cite Article 9-A] rules. It
is intended primarily for disputes over conflicting claims
arising out of repurchase agreement transactions that are not
covered by the other rules set out in Articles 8 and 9 [Maine
cite Article 9-A].

 
The following example illustrates subsection (c):

 
Example 4. Dealer holds securities through an account at
Alpha Bank. Alpha Bank in turns holds through a clearing
corporation account. Dealer transfers securities to RP1 in a
"hold in custody" repo transaction. Dealer then transfers the
same securities to RP2 in another repo transaction. The repo to
RP2 is implemented by transferring the securities from Dealer's
regular account at Alpha Bank to a special account maintained by
Alpha Bank for Dealer and RP2. The agreement among Dealer, RP2,
and Alpha Bank provides that Dealer can make substitutions for
the securities but RP2 can direct Alpha Bank to sell any
securities held in the special account. Dealer becomes
insolvent. RP1 claims a prior interest in the securities
transferred to RP2.

 
In this example Dealer remained the entitlement holder but
agreed that RP2 could initiate entitlement orders to Dealer's
security intermediary, Alpha Bank. If RP2 had become the
entitlement holder, the adverse claim rule of Section 8-502 would
apply. Even if RP2 does not become the entitlement holder, the
arrangement among Dealer, Alpha Bank, and RP2 does suffice to
give RP2 control. Thus, under Section 8-510(c), RP2 has priority
over RP1, because RP2 is a purchaser who obtained control, and
RP1 is a purchaser who did not obtain control. The same result
could be reached under Section 8-510(a) which provides that RP1's
earlier in time interest cannot be asserted as an adverse claim
against RP2. The same result would follow under the Article 9
[Maine cite Article 9-A] priority rules if the interests of RP1
and RP2 are characterized as "security interests," see Section
9-115(5)(a) 9-328(1) [Maine cite section 9-1328, subsection (1)].
The main point of the rules of Section 8-510(c) is to ensure that
there will be clear rules to cover the conflicting claims of RP1
and RP2 without characterizing their interests as Article 9
[Maine cite Article 9-A] security interests.

 
The priority rules in Article 9 [Maine cite Article 9-A] for
conflicting security interests also include a default temporal


Page 491 of 493 Top of Page Page 493 of 493