Opinion ID: 678497
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidencing an Entitlement to Receive, Hold and Dispose

Text: 20 With respect to the first, fact-dependent inquiry, the district court found that, in the regular course of business or financing, commodities trading firms and banks accept holding certificates as collateral for loans and, consequently, treat them as evidence that a person in possession of such a holding certificate is entitled to receive the commodities referred to in that certificate. Bank of New York v. Amoco Oil Co., 831 F.Supp. 254, 260 (S.D.N.Y.1993). As a factual finding, this aspect of the district court's decision is subject to review under the clearly erroneous standard. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985); see also Salve Regina, 499 U.S. at 233, 111 S.Ct. at 1222 (confirming that appellate courts should continue to defer to district court findings of fact); Alentino, Ltd. v. Chenson Enters., Inc., 938 F.2d 26, 28 (2d Cir.1991). 21 There was ample evidence to support the district court's finding. The district court heard testimony that metals trading firms in the regular course of business pledged holding certificates to banks as collateral for loans. The district court also heard testimony that banks, including the Bank of New York, retained holding certificates as collateral for loans. Further, the district court heard testimony that the Bank of New York listed the platinum described in the holding certificates as collateral on its collateral reports. 22 Amoco contends that because there was no evidence that a holding certificate had actually been sold, the district court's finding was clearly erroneous. We reject this argument. There is no requirement that a document be sold to constitute a document of title. It is enough that the document be treated, in the regular course of business or financing ... as adequately evidencing that the person in possession of it is entitled to receive, hold and dispose of the document and the goods it covers. 23 Because there is no requirement, as a matter of law, that a document be sold to constitute a document of title and because, in reviewing the district court's finding in light of all the evidence, we cannot state that we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake as been committed. Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573, 105 S.Ct. at 1511 (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)). We therefore affirm the district court's finding that holding certificates for precious metals were, in the regular course of business or financing ... treated as adequately evidencing that the person in possession of it is entitled to receive, hold and dispose of the document and the goods it covers. 24