| 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. |