DC Code § 28:8-110 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 8 - Investment Securities|Part I - Short Title and General Matters|§ 28:8-110. Applicability; choice of law

(a) The local law of the issuer’s jurisdiction, as specified in subsection (d) of this section, governs: (1) The validity of a security; (2) The rights and duties of the issuer with respect to registration of transfer; (3) The effectiveness of registration of transfer by the issuer; (4) Whether the issuer owes any duties to an adverse claimant to a security; and (5) Whether an adverse claim can be asserted against a person to whom transfer of a certificated or uncertificated security is registered or a person who obtains control of an uncertificated security. (b) The local law of the securities intermediary’s jurisdiction, as specified in subsection (e) of this section, governs: (1) Acquisition of a security entitlement from the securities intermediary; (2) The rights and duties of the securities intermediary and entitlement holder arising out of a security entitlement; (3) Whether the securities intermediary owes any duties to an adverse claimant to a security entitlement; and (4) Whether an adverse claim can be asserted against a person who acquires a security entitlement from the securities intermediary or a person who purchases a security entitlement or interest therein from an entitlement holder. (c) The local law of the jurisdiction in which a security certificate is located at the time of delivery governs whether an adverse claim can be asserted against a person to whom the security certificate is delivered. (d) For the purposes of this article, the term “issuer’s jurisdiction” means the jurisdiction under which the issuer of the security is organized or, if permitted by the law of that jurisdiction, the law of another jurisdiction specified by the issuer. An issuer organized under the law of the District of Columbia may specify the law of another jurisdiction as the law governing the matters specified in subsection (a)(2) through (5) of this section. (e) The following rules determine a “securities intermediary’s jurisdiction” for purposes of this section: (1) If an agreement between the securities intermediary and its entitlement holder governing the securities account expressly provides that a particular jurisdiction is the securities intermediary’s jurisdiction for purposes of this part or this article, that jurisdiction is the securities intermediary’s jurisdiction. (2) If paragraph (1) does not apply and an agreement between the securities intermediary and its entitlement holder expressly provides that the agreement is governed by the law of a particular jurisdiction, that jurisdiction is the securities intermediary’s jurisdiction. (3) If neither paragraph (1) nor paragraph (2) applies and an agreement between the securities intermediary and its entitlement holder governing the securities account expressly provides that the securities account is maintained at an office in a particular jurisdiction, that jurisdiction is the securities intermediary’s jurisdiction. (4) If none of the preceding paragraphs of this subsection applies, the securities intermediary’s jurisdiction is the jurisdiction in which the office identified in an account statement as the office serving the entitlement holder’s account is located. (5) If none of the preceding paragraphs of this subsection applies, the securities intermediary’s jurisdiction is the jurisdiction in which the chief executive office of the securities intermediary is located. (f) A securities intermediary’s jurisdiction is not determined by the physical location of certificates representing financial assets, or by the jurisdiction in which is organized the issuer of the financial asset with respect to which an entitlement holder has a security entitlement, or by the location of facilities for data processing or other record keeping concerning the account.  (Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 733, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1; Mar. 16, 1993, D.C. Law 9-196, § 4, 39 DCR 9165; renumbered and amended, Apr. 9, 1997, D.C. Law 11-240, § 2, 44 DCR 1087; Oct. 26, 2000, D.C. Law 13-201, § 201(i)(3), 47 DCR 7576.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:8-110. 1973 Ed., § 28:8-106. Section References This section is referenced in § 28:1-301 and § 28:9-305. Effect of Amendments D.C. Law 13-201, enacting a new Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code applicable July 1, 2001, made conforming amendments to this section applicable upon the same date. Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. This section deals with applicability and choice of law issues concerning Article 8. The distinction between the direct and indirect holding systems plays a significant role in determining the governing law. An investor in the direct holding system is registered on the books of the issuer and/or has possession of a security certificate. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of incorporation of the issuer or location of the certificate determine the applicable law. By contrast, an investor in the indirect holding system has a security entitlement, which is a bundle of rights against the securities intermediary with respect to a security, rather than a direct interest in the underlying security. Accordingly, in the rules for the indirect holding system, the jurisdiction of incorporation of the issuer of the underlying security or the location of any certificates that might be held by the intermediary or a higher tier intermediary, do not determine the applicable law. The phrase “local law” refers to the law of a jurisdiction other than its conflict of laws rules. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws s 4. 2. Subsection (a) provides that the law of an issuer’s jurisdiction governs certain issues where the substantive rules of Article 8 determine the issuer’s rights and duties. Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) provides that the law of the issuer’s jurisdiction governs the validity of the security. This ensures that a single body of law will govern the questions addressed in Part 2 of Article 8, concerning the circumstances in which an issuer can and cannot assert invalidity as a defense against purchasers. Similarly, paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (a) ensure that the issuer will be able to look to a single body of law on the questions addressed in Part 4 of Article 8, concerning the issuer’s duties and liabilities with respect to registration of transfer. Paragraph (5) of subsection (a) applies the law of an issuer’s jurisdiction to the question whether an adverse claim can be asserted against a purchaser to whom transfer has been registered, or who has obtained control over an uncertificated security. Although this issue deals with the rights of persons other than the issuer, the law of the issuer’s jurisdiction applies because the purchasers to whom the provision applies are those whose protection against adverse claims depends on the fact that their interests have been recorded on the books of the issuer. The principal policy reflected in the choice of law rules in subsection (a) is that an issuer and others should be able to look to a single body of law on the matters specified in subsection (a), rather than having to look to the law of all of the different jurisdictions in which security holders may reside. The choice of law policies reflected in this subsection do not require that the body of law governing all of the matters specified in subsection (a) be that of the jurisdiction in which the issuer is incorporated. Thus, subsection (d) provides that the term “issuer’s jurisdiction” means the jurisdiction in which the issuer is organized, or, if permitted by that law, the law of another jurisdiction selected by the issuer. Subsection (d) also provides that issuers organized under the law of a State which adopts this Article may make such a selection, except as to the validity issue specified in paragraph (1). The question whether an issuer can assert the defense of invalidity may implicate significant policies of the issuer’s jurisdiction of incorporation. See, e.g., Section 8-202 and Comments thereto. Although subsection (a) provides that the issuer’s rights and duties concerning registration of transfer are governed by the law of the issuer’s jurisdiction, other matters related to registration of transfer, such as appointment of a guardian for a registered owner or the existence of agency relationships, might be governed by another jurisdiction’s law. Neither this section nor Section 1-105 deals with what law governs the appointment of the administrator or executor; that question is determined under generally applicable choice of law rules. 3. Subsection (b) provides that the law of the securities intermediary’s jurisdiction governs the issues concerning the indirect holding system that are dealt with in Article 8. Paragraphs (1) and (2) cover the matters dealt with in the Article 8 rules defining the concept of security entitlement and specifying the duties of securities intermediaries. Paragraph (3) provides that the law of the security intermediary’s jurisdiction determines whether the intermediary owes any duties to an adverse claimant. Paragraph (4) provides that the law of the security intermediary’s jurisdiction determines whether adverse claims can be asserted against entitlement holders and others. 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 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 9-305. The remaining paragraphs in subsection (e) contain additional default rules for determining the securities intermediary’s jurisdiction. Subsection (f) makes explicit a point that is implicit in the Article 8 description of a security entitlement as a bundle of rights against the intermediary with respect to a security or other financial asset, rather than as a direct interest in the underlying security or other financial asset. The governing law for relationships in the indirect holding system is not determined by such matters as the jurisdiction of incorporation of the issuer of the securities held through the intermediary, or the location of any physical certificates held by the intermediary or a higher tier intermediary. 4. Subsection (c) provides a choice of law rule for adverse claim issues that may arise in connection with delivery of security certificates in the direct holding system. It applies the law of the place of delivery. If a certificated security issued by an Idaho corporation is sold, and the sale is settled by physical delivery of the certificate from Seller to Buyer in New York, under subsection (c), New York law determines whether Buyer takes free from adverse claims. The domicile of Seller, Buyer, and any adverse claimant is irrelevant. 5. The following examples illustrate how a court in a jurisdiction which has enacted this section would determine the governing law: Example 1. John Doe, a resident of Kansas, maintains a securities account with Able & Co. Able is incorporated in Delaware. Its chief executive offices are located in Illinois. The office where Doe transacts business with Able is located in Missouri. The agreement between Doe and Able specifies that Illinois is the securities intermediary’s (Able’s) jurisdiction. Through the account, Doe holds securities of a Colorado corporation, which Able holds through Clearing Corporation. The rules of Clearing Corporation provide that the rights and duties of Clearing Corporation and its participants are governed by New York law. Subsection (a) specifies that a controversy concerning the rights and duties as between the issuer and Clearing Corporation is governed by Colorado law. Subsections (b) and (e) specify that a controversy concerning the rights and duties as between the Clearing Corporation and Able is governed by New York law, and that a controversy concerning the rights and duties as between Able and Doe is governed by Illinois law. Example 2. Same facts as to Doe and Able as in Example 1. Through the account, Doe holds securities of a Senegalese corporation, which Able holds through Clearing Corporation. Clearing Corporation’s operations are located in Belgium, and its rules and agreements with its participants provide that they are governed by Belgian law. Clearing Corporation holds the securities through a custodial account at the Paris branch office of Global Bank, which is organized under English law. The agreement between Clearing Corporation and Global Bank provides that it is governed by French law. Subsection (a) specifies that a controversy concerning the rights and duties as between the issuer and Global Bank is governed by Senegalese law. Subsections (b) and (e) specify that a controversy concerning the rights and duties as between Global Bank and Clearing Corporation is governed by French law, that a controversy concerning the rights and duties as between Clearing Corporation and Able is governed by Belgian law, and that a controversy concerning the rights and duties as between Able and Doe is governed by Illinois law. 6. To the extent that this section does not specify the governing law, general choice of law rules apply. For example, suppose that in either of the examples in the preceding Comment, Doe enters into an agreement with Roe, also a resident of Kansas, in which Doe agrees to transfer all of his interests in the securities held through Able to Roe. Article 8 does not deal with whether such an agreement is enforceable or whether it gives Roe some interest in Doe’s security entitlement. This section specifies what jurisdiction’s law governs the issues that are dealt with in Article 8. Article 8, however, does specify that securities intermediaries have only limited duties with respect to adverse claims. See Section 8-115. Subsection (b)(3) of this section provides that Illinois law governs whether Able owes any duties to an adverse claimant. Thus, if Illinois has adopted Revised Article 8, Section 8-115 as enacted in Illinois determines whether Roe has any rights against Able. 7. The choice of law provisions concerning security interests in securities and security entitlements are set out in Section 9-305. Definitional Cross References “Adverse claim”. Section 8-102(a)(1). “Agreement”. Section 1-201(3). “Certificated security”. Section 8-102(a)(4). “Entitlement holder”. Section 8-102(a)(7). “Financial asset”. Section 8-102(a)(9). “Issuer”. Section 8-201. “Person”. Section 1-201(30). “Purchase”. Section 1-201(32). “Securities intermediary”. Section 8-102(a)(14). “Security”. Section 8-102(a)(15). “Security certificate”. Section 8-102(a)(16). “Security entitlement”. Section 8-102(a)(17). “Uncertificated security”. Section 8-102(a)(18).