U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

19–118 

" ! SENATE 

112TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

TREATY DOC. 

2012

112–6 

THE CONVENTION ON THE LAW APPLICABLE TO 

CERTAIN RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF SECURITIES 

HELD WITH AN INTERMEDIARY 

MESSAGE 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

THE CONVENTION ON THE LAW APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN RIGHTS 

IN RESPECT OF SECURITIES HELD WITH AN INTERMEDIARY 

(THE ‘‘CONVENTION’’), DONE AT THE HAGUE ON JULY 5, 2006, 

AND SIGNED BY THE UNITED STATES ON THAT SAME DAY 

MAY 17, 2012.—Treaty was read the first time, and together with the 

accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

and ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(III)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

THE WHITE HOUSE, May 17, 2012. 

To the Senate of the United States: 

With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to 

ratification, I transmit herewith the Convention on the Law Applicable to Certain Rights in Respect of Securities Held with an Intermediary (the ‘‘Convention’’), done at The Hague on July 5, 2006, 

and signed by the United States on that same day. The report of 

the Secretary of State, which includes an Overview of the proposed 

Convention, is enclosed for the information of the Senate. 

The United States supported the development of the Convention, 

which provides uniform rules for determining the law applicable to 

certain rights in commercial transactions involving investment securities held through intermediaries (such as brokers, banks, and 

other financial institutions). The Convention incorporates modern 

commercial finance methods already market-tested in the United 

States through the Uniform Commercial Code. It would ensure that 

countries that become party to this Convention would also apply 

those methods. The Convention, once in force, would improve the 

functioning of investment securities markets, reduce uncertainty in 

cross-border commerce, and reduce national and cross-border systemic risk. 

The Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and the New York Federal Reserve Bank support ratification 

by the United States of this Convention, as do key private sector 

associations. I recommend, therefore, that the Senate give early 

and favorable consideration to the Convention and give its advice 

and consent to its ratification. 

BARACK OBAMA. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(V)

LETTER OF SUBMITTAL 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, July 18, 2011. 

The PRESIDENT, The White House. 

THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you, with a view 

to its transmittal to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification, the Convention on the Law Applicable to Certain Rights in 

Respect of Securities Held with an Intermediary, done at The 

Hague on July 5, 2006 (the ‘‘Convention’’) and signed by the United 

States on that date. An overview of the Convention with a detailed 

article-by-article analysis is enclosed with this report. 

Modern investment securities markets, such as those of the 

United States, have moved from a paper-based system largely to 

electronic transfer of securities, which makes possible higher volumes of transactions through ‘‘intermediaries’’ (such as brokers, 

banks, and other financial institutions). Such transactions can 

cross borders rapidly. The Convention provides uniform rules for 

determining the law applicable to certain rights in commercial 

transactions involving investment securities held through intermediaries. The question of which law governs such intermediated 

securities has become a matter of significant concern to market 

participants as well as banking supervisors and regulators. The objective of the Convention is to provide greater legal certainty in 

this area, thereby reducing legal and systemic risk, enhancing efficiency in market transactions, and facilitating the global flow of 

capital. The Convention was formulated at The Hague Conference 

on Private International Law by forty-five countries with substantial participation of the U.S. private sector. The rules of the Convention are compatible with modern finance law in the United 

States as set out in the Uniform Commercial Code, which has been 

adopted by all U.S. states and the District of Columbia. 

The U.S. government and the U.S. financial community supported the Convention’s negotiation. Its ratification by the United 

States is supported by the relevant U.S. regulatory agencies, including the Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (CFTC), and the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The 

Convention is also supported by securities clearance and settlement 

entities, including the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation 

(the U.S. central securities depositary), commercial market interests including custodian banks, broker-dealers, securities intermediaries, and securities industry associations including the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), the 

International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
VI

Emerging Markets Traders Association (EMTA), the Association of 

Global Custodians (AGC), and others. Experts from the National 

Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (ULC) were 

involved at all stages of the Convention’s development and the 

ULC itself was represented at the Diplomatic Conference adopting 

the Convention. The American Bar Association has adopted a formal resolution recommending U.S. ratification on the recommendation of the Business Law and International law Sections. 

I recommend, therefore, that you transmit the Convention to the 

Senate for advice and consent to ratification. 

Respectfully submitted, 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON. 

Enclosures: As stated. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(VII)

OVERVIEW

The Convention provides uniform rules for rapidly determining 

the law applicable to certain rights in commercial transactions involving investment securities held through intermediaries. 

In modern capital markets, investment securities are commonly 

held in electronic form by banks, securities brokers and other entities collectively known as ‘‘securities intermediaries.’’ Securities interests in computer data form move today through intermediaries 

in increasingly high volumes and cross borders frequently, and it 

is exceedingly difficult to determine in advance which law would 

apply to particular transactions or intermediaries if traditional 

choice of law principles are employed. Even when the initial parties 

may be located within the United States, the nature of computerbased transfers of securities through various intermediaries means 

that any transfer typically involves book-entries by a chain of intermediaries located in several countries all in the same day; securities moving between accounts thus may quickly involve dispositions 

of securities or collateral in other jurisdictions, raising issues as to 

which countries’ laws may apply. 

The question of which law governs has become a matter of significant concern to market participants as well as securities and 

derivatives markets regulators, banking supervisors, and regulators. The objective of the Convention is to provide greater legal 

certainty in this area, thereby reducing legal and systemic risk, enhancing efficiency in market transactions and facilitating the global 

flow of capital. 

The rules adopted by the Convention reflect modern finance law 

in the U.S. as set out in Articles 8 and 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (‘‘UCC’’), adopted by all U.S. states and the District of Columbia, which have provided the necessary legal certainty for domestic securities transactions. That certainty is absent today from 

most transactions that cross national borders or for other countries 

and foreign markets in their relations to securities interests in the 

U.S. The Convention’s provisions would apply as stated to transactions within its scope, but would not otherwise displace applicable provisions of the UCC. 

An Explanatory Report on the Convention was prepared by the 

Conference Drafting Group on which U.S. government and securities industry experts were represented, which sets forth interpretations of the provisions of the Convention that were agreed to in the 

negotiation process. 

The Convention deals only with choice of law, and only with securities held with an intermediary and credited to a securities account. It has no effect on the substantive law that will be applied 

once the choice of law determination has been made. It does not 

otherwise deal with the relationship between an issuer and its regVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:11 May 18, 2012 Jkt 019118 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 7633 E:\HR\OC\TD006.XXX TD006

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
VIII

istered owner or with interests in securities transferred by physical 

delivery or direct registration on the books of an issuer. 

Because of the transactional and regulatory risk incurred by the 

inability to rapidly determine applicable law in cross-border securities-based commerce, U.S. agencies and financial and securities industries were active proponents of the negotiation, seeking to 

achieve sufficient certainty in world markets comparable to that already achieved in the U.S. by uniform state law through the Uniform Commercial Code. 

The Convention would be self-executing. No implementing legislation would be required. We note that although the Convention 

would be self-executing, existing U.S. laws, including the Securities 

and Exchange Act of 1934, already provide to U.S. Government 

regulatory and supervisory authorities, including the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, authority to act in areas covered by the Convention. The U.S. and Switzerland signed the Convention together on July 5, 2006 in order to underscore the important level of support from two major banking and securities countries, and Switzerland has ratified it. U.S. ratification of the Convention is expected to have a positive effect on the willingness of 

other countries to take similar action. 

ARTICLE-BY-ARTICLE ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 1—DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE

Article 1—Definitions and interpretation 

Article 1 contains definitions and interpretive provisions. ‘‘Securities’’ (subparagraph (a)) are defined as ‘‘any shares, bonds or other 

financial instruments or financial assets (other than cash), or any 

interest therein’’, and ‘‘intermediary’’ (subparagraph (c)) is defined 

as ‘‘a person that in the course of a business or other regular activity maintains securities accounts for others or both for others and 

its own account and is acting in that capacity’’ (i.e., often brokersdealers, banks and other financial institutions. 

The key Convention language, which together with Article 2 determines scope of application, is the definition in subparagraph (1) 

(f) of ‘‘securities held with an intermediary’’ defined as ‘‘the rights 

of an account holder resulting from a credit of securities to a securities account’’. Those terms have the same meaning as the Revised 

Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 8 (uniform investment securities law) concept of a ‘‘securities entitlement.’’ The Convention 

does not cover transfers or security interests in securities held directly, i.e., which do not enter the intermediated system. The definition of ‘‘securities’’ under the Convention is sufficiently broad to 

cover various forms of financial assets that laws in any country 

permit to be carried in a securities account. The exclusion of cash 

from the definition of ‘‘securities’’ preserves the distinction between 

securities accounts and ordinary bank deposit accounts. 

Article 1(2) clarifies that ‘‘disposition of securities held with an 

intermediary,’’ as defined in Article 1, subparagraph (h), covers 

both outright transfers of title and the grant of security interests. 

The term ‘‘disposition’’ includes a disposition of an entire securities 

account, as well as some or all of the securities credited to the account. Article 1(3) covers a holding pattern in which an entity that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
IX

might otherwise be acting as a central securities depository is acting only as a transfer or registration agent. Article 1(4) clarifies 

that a central securities depository is treated as an intermediary 

for purposes of the Convention. 

Article 2—Scope of the Convention and of the applicable law 

Article 2(1) sets forth the issues that are to be governed by the 

applicable law once that is determined pursuant to Articles 4 and 

5 of the Convention. These issues parallel the securities transaction 

issues currently governed under Articles 8 and 9 of the UCC once 

the ‘‘securities intermediary’s jurisdiction’’ under UCC has been determined. 

Under the Convention, if the applicable law is the law of a particular state in the United States, the relevant law would be Articles 8 and 9 of the UCC dealing with indirect holdings and interests in securities entitlements. That will be so regardless of the location, if determinable, of any security certificates, any securities 

register, any securities account, any intermediary, any issuer or 

any office. That result will apply in any transaction subject to the 

Convention. 

The issues identified in Article 2(1)(d), whether a person’s interest in securities held with an intermediary extinguishes or has priority over another person’s interest, covers the issues that, in current U.S. law, are commonly referred to as ‘‘bona fide purchase’’ 

issues. The Convention would ensure that an investor to whose account securities are credited need look only to the law applicable 

pursuant to Article 4 or 5 of the Convention to determine whether 

the investor acquires its interest free from adverse claims. Existing 

choice of law rules in jurisdictions outside the United States often 

leave that in considerable doubt. 

Article 2(1)(e) ensures that the law applicable pursuant to Article 

4 or 5 governs the question of whether the intermediary owes any 

duties to a person who asserts an adverse claim to position held 

through that intermediary. This provision is very important to the 

safe and sound operation of the international and national central 

securities depositories and securities settlement systems. It ensures 

that an intermediary can look to the law applicable pursuant to Articles 4 or 5 alone to determine whether it owes any duties to persons asserting adverse claims. UCC Article 8–115 achieves a similar result with respect to intermediary protection against adverse 

claims. Article 2(1)(e) would ensure predictability for U.S. intermediaries, whenever U.S. law is the governing law, regardless of 

where the transaction takes place. 

Article 2(2) clarifies that the Convention determines the law applicable to all of the issues identified in paragraph 1, irrespective 

of whether the rights resulting from the credit of the securities to 

a securities account are determined to be contractual in nature. 

This is consistent with Article 2(3), which provides that the Convention does not otherwise determine the law applicable to the 

purely contractual or personal rights and duties arising from the 

credit of securities to a securities account or of parties to a disposition. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
X

Article 2(3)(c) provides that the Convention does not determine 

the law applicable to the rights and duties of an issuer of securities 

or the issuer’s registrar or transfer agent. 

Article 3—Internationality 

Article 3 provides that the Convention applies ‘‘in all cases involving a choice between the laws of different States.’’ This broad 

application provision means the Convention would determine the 

applicable law regarding issues that arise, among other things, in 

transactional, credit assessment and other circumstances in addition to any matters in dispute or litigation. The reference in the 

text to ‘‘cases’’ means in U.S. usage ‘‘situations’’—it does not mean 

that the Convention applies only in a judicial proceeding or formal 

dispute. 

The Explanatory Report on the Convention issued by the Hague 

Conference states that Article 3 would mean that the Convention 

would generally apply whenever any two of the following factors 

are in different States: 

(i) the account holder; 

(ii) any of the parties to a disposition of the securities or the 

securities account, or an interest in either; 

(iii) the relevant intermediary; or 

(iv) the issuer or issuers of the securities. 

The foregoing list is not exclusive; particular fact patterns may 

raise additional factors that make the choice of which countries’ 

law applies necessary to resolve, which then would result in the application of the Convention. By avoiding a fixed rule on timing, Article 3 also means that the Convention’s application is not limited 

temporally to the moment of litigation or other occurrence of a particular transaction, but can apply at any time to a later party in 

interest when it acquired its rights. 

CHAPTER II—APPLICABLE LAW

Article 4—Primary Rule on Applicable Law 

Article 4 sets forth the primary rule for determining the law applicable to the matters covered by the Convention, a straightforward choice of law rule, wherein the law of a single State applies. The basic Article 4 rule provides that the law applicable to 

the issues specified in Article 2(1) is ‘‘the law in force in the State 

expressly agreed in the account agreement as the State whose law 

governs the account agreement or, if the account agreement expressly provides that another law is applicable to all such issues, 

that other law.’’ 

The second clause was included primarily to cover cases where 

the law of one State is selected for contractual matters under the 

account agreement, but another law is expressly selected to govern 

the issues listed in Article 2(1) of the Convention. Under section 8– 

110(e)(1) and (2) of the UCC, the parties are permitted to select as 

the ‘‘securities intermediary’s jurisdiction’’ the law of a jurisdiction 

different from the law selected to govern the account agreement 

itself. The Article 4 rule determining the applicable law turns on 

the agreement between the customer and the intermediary that 

maintains the account. If a customer holds securities through an 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
XI

account with a broker and wishes to use its holdings as collateral 

for a loan from a lender, the Article 4 test provides that the governing law is determined by the agreement between the customer 

and the broker concerning the account, not the loan or collateral 

agreement between the customer and the lender. 

While under the UCC, the securities intermediary’s jurisdiction 

can be determined entirely by agreement between the intermediary 

and the customer, there is an additional requirement under Convention Article 4 that the selection of governing law is effective 

only if certain minimal conditions are met, including the requirement that the intermediary had, at the time the law is selected, an 

office in that country that engaged in relevant securities work. 

Under Article 1(1), ‘‘office’’ is defined to mean a place of business 

of the intermediary that carries out functions relating to the maintenance of securities accounts. It does not have to have dealt with 

the particular accounts or securities at issue in order to qualify for 

this purpose. As an alternative to the activities related to securities 

account maintenance, a qualifying office can also be established by 

identification through an account number, bank code, or other specific means of identifying the office as one which maintains securities accounts in the chosen State. 

Article 5—Applicable law fall-back rules 

Article 5 of the Convention contains a set of ‘‘fall-back’’ rules that 

apply when Article 4 does not determine the law applicable to the 

Article 2(1) issues. This can occur if the parties have not expressly 

agreed upon a governing law in the account agreement, or if the 

agreement as to governing law is ineffective for purposes of the 

Convention by reason of failure to meet the qualifying office test. 

Article 5 also provides the fall-back rules when the analysis of preConvention account agreements and securities accounts under Article 16 fails to produce a result. These fall-back rules, as do their 

counterparts in the UCC, are designed to provide a rapid means of 

determining applicable law. 

Article 5(1) provides that, if the parties expressly agree in writing that the intermediary entered into the account agreement 

through a particular office, then the law applicable to all the Article 2(1) issues is to be the law where that office was then located, 

provided that the office then satisfied the qualified office test in Article 4. In order to simplify the diligence process, Article 5(1) also 

lists a series of provisions commonly found in account agreements 

that are not to be considered as implying such an agreement, such 

as notice provisions and consents to jurisdiction for legal process. 

If Article 5(1) is not applicable, Article 5(2) provides that the law 

under which an intermediary is incorporated or organized will govern the Article 2(1) issues, unless that law is the national law of 

a country with a federal structure, such as the United States, in 

which case the law of the place of its business (or its principal 

place of business if it has more than one place of business) will govern. 

If Article 5(2) is not applicable, Article 5(3) provides that the law 

applicable in the intermediary’s place of business will apply or if 

the intermediary has more than one place of business, its principal 

place of business. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
XII

The choice of law in both of the Article 5(2) or 5(3) fall-back rules 

is fixed at the time the account agreement is executed or, in the 

absence of a written agreement, at the time the relevant securities 

account is opened. 

Article 6—Factors to be disregarded 

Article 6 sets forth factors to be disregarded in a manner similar 

to the list of factors to be disregarded under UCC Section 8–110(f) 

in determining the ‘‘securities intermediary’s jurisdiction,’’ including (1) the place where the issuer is incorporated, or otherwise organized or has its statutory seat or registered office, central administration or place or principle place of business, (2) the place where 

security certificates are located, (3) the place where any securities 

register is located, or (4) the place where any intermediary other 

than the relevant intermediary is located. The Convention reflects 

the view of the United States and others that the ‘‘look-through’’ 

approach that has in the past been applied even in the United 

States to choice of law for securities held with intermediaries, and 

which requires a detailed and time-consuming analysis, is impractical in an age of rapidly moving electronic transactions. 

Absent the Convention or laws similar to the UCC, use as collateral of a portfolio of securities issued by companies around the 

globe would be costly and difficult, even if held through a single account with an intermediary, since a lender could not be assured 

that appropriate steps had been taken to perfect an interest unless 

the transaction were examined under (1) the laws of all of the various jurisdictions of the issuers of all of the securities held through 

the account, (2) the location in which certificates representing the 

underlying securities might be held, (3) the various places where 

the account might be deemed to be located, and (4) the various offices that might be deemed to maintain the account. 

Article 7—Protection of rights on change of the applicable law 

Article 7 deals with the situation in which an account agreement 

is amended so as to change the applicable law. The Convention includes rules to protect a secured party or other transferee against 

potential adverse effects of such a change, and was included in the 

Convention primarily for the benefit of countries, unlike the United 

States, where establishing a security interest does not as readily 

permit a secured party to eliminate the problem of change in law. 

In the United States, Article 9 of the UCC generally provides certain grace periods to address these issues. 

Article 7 uses the terms ‘‘old law’’ and ‘‘new law’’ as, respectively, 

the law determined under the Convention before and after the 

change in the agreement. The most important part of Article 7 is 

subsection (3), which provides that, except as stated in subsection 

(4) to Article 7, the new law governs all of the issues governed by 

the Convention. Exceptions to that general rule are set forth in Article 7(4). 

Article 8—Insolvency 

The Convention is consistent with U.S. insolvency laws. The Convention provides that the applicable law determined under Articles 

4 or 5 will govern the Article 2(1) issues with respect to any event 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
XIII

that occurred prior to the opening of an insolvency proceeding. This 

is consistent with the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. It is also consistent 

with Section 210 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street and Consumer 

Protection Act and with the bank resolution provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and the resolution provisions applicable 

to the GSEs and the Federal Home Loan Banks under the Housing 

and Economic Recovery Act. 

Article 8(1) thus provides that the applicable law determined by 

Articles 4 or 5 governs the Article 2(1) issues with respect to any 

event that occurred prior to the opening of an insolvency proceeding (a defined term in Article 1), subject to Article 8(2) which 

provides that the ‘‘substantive or procedural’’ insolvency rules of 

the insolvency forum State shall govern the ranking of claims, voidable transactions such as preferences and fraudulent conveyances 

and statutory or judicial stays on realization of collateral. Thus, 

under the Convention (as in the case under the U.S. Bankruptcy 

Code), a creditor’s security interest perfected under the law governing the Article 2(1) issues would be subject to the automatic 

stay and to avoidance rules on preferential transfers. 

CHAPTER III—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 9—General applicability of the Convention 

Under Article 9, the Convention applies in a ratifying State or 

when the law of such a State is being applied, whether or not the 

law determined to be applicable under the Convention is that of a 

State party to the Convention. 

Article 10—Exclusion of choice of law rules (renvoi) 

Article 10 provides that the law to be applied by operation of the 

Convention’s rules is the law in force in a State other than its 

choice of law rules. This is also consistent with the choice of law 

rules in Articles 8 and 9 of the UCC. 

Article 11—Public policy and internationally mandatory rules 

Article 11 deals with the extent to which a forum court may decline to apply the Convention’s choice of law rules on grounds of 

public policy of the forum. Subsection (1) provides that a forum 

state can refuse to apply the substantive law determined under the 

Convention only if application of that law would be ‘‘manifestly 

contrary to the public policy of the forum.’’ The Explanatory Report 

clarifies that this public policy exception applies only in the admittedly extremely rare cases where the relevant foreign rule, as applied to the facts of the case, would produce a result that departs 

so radically from the forum’s concepts of fundamental justice that 

its application would be intolerably offensive to the forum’s basic 

values. Subsection (2) provides that the Convention does not preclude application of any rules of the forum that must be applied irrespective of conflict of law rules. 

The more significant feature of Article 11 is found in subparagraph (3), which provides that the exception for rules of public policy and internationally mandatory rules does not apply to rules of 

the forum relating to perfection and priorities. Those are key factors on which parties must be able to rely for the treaty to be effecVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:11 May 18, 2012 Jkt 019118 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\TD006.XXX TD006

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
XIV

tive, and were specifically requested by the United States and 

other countries that wanted the Convention to provide an adequate 

level of legal certainty for secured transactions. 

Article 12—Determination of the applicable law for Multi-unit 

States 

Article 12 contains a number of interpretive rules for Multi-unit 

States. The term Multi-unit State is defined in Article 1 as ‘‘a State 

within which two or more territorial units of that State, or both the 

State and one or more of its territorial units, have their own rules 

of law governing the issues specified in Article 2(1).’’ The United 

States qualifies as such a ‘‘Multi-unit State,’’ given that there are 

U.S. federal laws that apply to U.S. government and agency securities, and state laws that apply to state, municipal and private sector corporate securities. 

The fundamental interpretive rule of Article 12 provides that, 

when an account agreement specifies that it is to be governed by 

the laws of a territorial unit, (1) the laws of that territorial unit 

are to be the law applicable to the Article 2(1) issues, but (2) that 

the local office requirement of Article 4 applies to the Multi-unit 

State as a whole. Thus, if an account agreement specifies that it 

is governed by the law of a particular U.S. state, that designation 

will be effective under Article 4 if the intermediary has a qualifying 

office anywhere within the United States. 

Article 12(2)(a) provides that, in applying the Convention, the 

law in force in a territorial unit of a Multi-unit State (such as the 

law of a particular U.S. state) will include not only the law of that 

unit but also national law of that country to the extent applicable 

in the territorial unit. This would preserve the application of federal law in the context of U.S. government and agency securities. 

Article 12(2) also preserves choice of law rules applicable pursuant 

to the law in force in a territorial unit in respect of perfection by 

filing. 

Article 13—Uniform interpretation 

Article 13, a standard provision in Hague Conventions and other 

international private law conventions, provides that in interpreting 

the Convention regard is to be had to its international character 

and to the need to promote uniformity in its application. 

Article 14—Review of practical operation of the Convention 

Article 14, also a standard provision in Hague Conventions, provides for the Permanent Bureau (Secretariat) of the Hague Conference to convene meetings to review the operation of the Convention. 

CHAPTER IV—TRANSITION PROVISIONS

Article 15—Priority between pre-Convention and post-Convention 

interests 

Article 15 addresses one situation involving pre-Convention interests, but does not provide a general rule as to prospective effect 

of the Convention. It provides that the substantive law determined 

under the Convention rules will determine whether an interest acVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:11 May 18, 2012 Jkt 019118 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\TD006.XXX TD006

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
XV

quired after the Convention enters into force extinguishes or has 

priority over an interest acquired prior to the Convention entering 

into force. The effect of this provision is that the law determined 

applicable under the Convention will apply to disputes on matters 

covered by the Convention as between other post-Convention interests, and to such disputes between the post-Convention interest 

and any pre-Convention interests. This is consistent with the 1994 

revision of UCC Article 8 and the subsequent revision of UCC Article 9. 

Article 16—Pre-Convention account agreements and securities accounts 

Under the basic rule of Article 4, the parties to an account agreement can include an explicit provision specifying the law that will 

govern the issues covered by the Convention. The Convention will 

also apply, however, to transactions where the relevant account 

agreement was entered into before the Convention came into force. 

Article 16 provides transitional rules on the extent to which the 

Convention applies to pre-Convention account agreements and securities accounts. Article 16(1) provides that references in the Convention to account agreements and securities accounts include 

those entered into or opened before the Convention entered into 

force. Article 16(2) makes clear that the transitional rules contained in that subparagraph do not apply if the account agreement 

makes express reference to the Convention. 

Article 16(3) sets out a transitional rule designed primarily with 

U.S. account agreements in mind, that is, agreements that were 

entered into in contemplation of the choice of law rules contained 

in UCC Articles 8 and 9. Article 16(3) provides that if the agreement contains a provision that would have the effect under its governing law—e.g., under U.S. law as set out in the UCC—that the 

issues covered by the Convention are governed by a particular law, 

then the agreement shall be treated as if it referred to the Hague 

Convention and selected that law. For example, if parties operating 

under Articles 8 and 9 of the UCC include in their account agreement a provision specifying that ‘‘the securities intermediary’s jurisdiction’’ is a particular U.S. state, the fact that the Hague Convention uses a different formulation could, absent this provision, 

create doubt whether that pre-Convention agreement has the expected effect under the Convention. Article 16(3) is designed to remove doubt on this point. 

Article 16(4) sets out a transitional rule intended primarily for 

non-U.S. agreements. Under Article 16(4), if the parties to an account agreement have agreed that the securities account is maintained in a particular State, then the law of that State shall be the 

law applicable to the Article 2(1) issues, provided that the relevant 

intermediary satisfied the qualified office test in Article 4(1) at the 

time it entered into the agreement. Unlike the rules in Articles 4, 

5 and 16(3), the agreement as to the account location in pre-Convention agreements may be express or implied from the circumstances. 

Article 16 also provides that a State may, upon ratification of the 

Convention, make various declarations limiting the effect of Article 

16. We do not recommend that the United States make such decVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:11 May 18, 2012 Jkt 019118 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\TD006.XXX TD006

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
XVI

larations, so that the applicable transitional rules would be those 

set out in Article 16(2) or 16(3). 

CHAPTER V—FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 17—Signature, ratification, or accession 

This article, standard in Hague Conventions, provides the technical rules describing the way in which a State can become bound 

by the Convention, thus becoming a ‘‘Contracting State’’. 

Article 18—Regional Economic Integration Organizations 

Article 18 deals with the way in which a Regional Economic Integration Organization (such as the European Union) can become 

bound by the Convention to the extent such Organization has competence over matters governed by the Convention. The United 

States supports the possible assumption by the European Union of 

the obligations of a Contracting State in view of the shared competence in securities law and regulation between the European 

Union and its member states. 

Article 19—Entry into force 

This article provides that the Convention will enter into force 

three months after three States have become Contracting States, 

and provides for the date of entry into force for subsequent ratifying States. 

Article 20—Multi-unit States 

Article 20 permits Multi-unit States to apply the Convention by 

way of declaration only to certain of its territorial units. We do not 

recommend that the United States make such a declaration in view 

of the need of securities markets to apply common rules to transactions throughout the U.S. 

Article 21—Reservations 

Article 21 states that reservations to this Convention are not permitted. 

Article 22—Declarations 

Article 22 provides the technical rules governing the manner in 

which the various declarations permitted to be made under the 

terms of the Convention become effective, modified or withdrawn. 

No declarations are recommended to be made by the United States. 

Article 23—Withdrawal 

Article 23 permits a Contracting State to withdraw from the 

Convention by notification in writing to the Depositary, which will 

become effective twelve months after the date on which the notification is received by the Depositary. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(1) 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 91 here TD6.001
2 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 92 here TD6.002
3 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 93 here TD6.003
4 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 94 here TD6.004
5 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 95 here TD6.005
6 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 96 here TD6.006
7 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 97 here TD6.007
8 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 98 here TD6.008
9 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 99 here TD6.009
10 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 100 here TD6.010
11 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 101 here TD6.011
12 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 102 here TD6.012
13 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 103 here TD6.013
14 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 104 here TD6.014
15 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 105 here TD6.015
16 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 106 here TD6.016
17 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 107 here TD6.017
18 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 108 here TD6.018
19 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 109/130 here TD6.019