Примеры использования Possessory security на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Accordingly, even if the law of the grantor's location were to be the general rule,an exception would need to be made for possessory security rights.
In the case of possessory security rights, possession of the encumbered asset is transferred to the secured creditor or a third party, or to a person acting on behalf of the secured creditor.
In some legal systems, a certification of the date by a public authority is required for possessory security rights, with the exception of small-amount loans where proof by way of witnesses is permitted.
It was suggested that paragraph 21 should clearly refer to the possibility that certain intangibles that were incorporated in documents of title could be subject to possessory security rights.
In other States with a general regime for possessory security rights only or for both possessory and non-possessory security rights, no such limitations exist.
As the conflict-of-laws rules generally will be different depending on the tangible or intangible character of the assets,the question arises as to which conflict rule is appropriate where intangible assets are capable of being the subject of a possessory security right.
It enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of possessory security rights, while lowering its cost by permitting creditors to delegate custodial responsibility to experts.
Another suggestion was that a recommendation should be included with respect to rights and duties associated with intangible assets(e.g. receivables), incorporated in documents, such as negotiable instruments,that could be subject to possessory security rights.
A second option may be to adopt integrated legislation for non-possessory security rights,leaving the regime on possessory security rights to other domestic law.
Ss"Possessory security right" means a security right in tangible property that is in the actual possession of the secured creditor or of another person(other than the debtor or other grantor) holding the asset for the benefit of the secured creditor;
On the other hand, it was said that, if such a duty was to be imposed on the debtor in the case of a non-possessory security right,it should also be imposed on the secured creditor in the case of a possessory security right.
Second, the rules on possessory security rights, especially the possessory pledge, may be covered and at the same time adapted to contemporary requirements e.g. by introducing the notion of control in relation to security rights in intangible property.
Another suggestion was that the first example given in paragraph 17 be removed as it contradicted a common rule applicable to possessory security rights that the return of the encumbered assets resulted in the extinction of the security right.
In addition, it is almost universally accepted that a possessory security right should be governed by the law of the place where the assets are held, so that adopting the law of the grantor for possessory rights would run against the reasonable expectations of non-sophisticated creditors.
It was suggested that a new paragraph should be added to discuss the duty of the secured creditor to return the encumbered asset to the debtor(in the case of a possessory security right) or to register a notice of release in the case of a non-possessory security right.
Another suggestion was that the creation,publicity and priority of a possessory security right should be governed by the lex rei sitae, while with respect to a non-possessory right those matters should be governed by the law of the grantor's location.
In this regard, most States assimilate certain categories of rights embodied in a document(such as a negotiable instrument)to tangible assets, thereby recognizing that a possessory security right may be created in such assets through the delivery of the document to the creditor.
As the private international law rules generally will be different depending on the tangible or intangible character of the assets,the question arises as to which private international law rule is appropriate if intangible property is capable of being the subject of a possessory security right.
The Committee recalled its decision to revert to the question of the law applicable to a priority conflict between a possessory security right in a negotiable document and a non-possessory security right in the tangible property covered by the document see para. 110 above.
In the context of efforts to create comprehensive regimes for non-possessory security rights in tangible property(see sect. A.2(a) above), it is common for security rights in one of the most important types of intangible property, receivables,to be integrated into the legal regime applicable to possessory security rights to tangible property.
As already discussed see chapter IV on the creation of a security right, paras. and chapter V on the effectiveness of a security right against third parties,paras. possessory security rights traditionally have been an important component of the secured transactions laws of most States.
It was noted that under both alternatives 1 and 2, the creation,publicity and priority of a possessory security right was subject to the law of the State in which the encumbered asset was located(lex rei sitae or lex situs), while the creation, publicity and priority of a security right in intangible property was subject to the law of the State in which the grantor was located.
Mr. Bazinas(Secretariat) said that the Commission was invited to consider whether it wished to include a recommendation that would address the priority conflict between two creditors,one with a possessory security right in a negotiable document and the other with a non-possessory security right in the goods covered by the document.
With respect to certificated securities, in line with the analogy to negotiable instruments, a possessory security right may have priority over a registered or other security right, or over the right of a buyer or other transferee of the securities see recommendations 101 and 102.
Mr. Bazinas(Secretariat) said that the note to the Commission following recommendation 202 was designed to address a conflict of priority between a secured creditor with a possessory security right in a negotiable document and a secured creditor with a non-possessory security right in the goods covered by the document.
For example, the grantor should have ownership(or some other property right) in the asset to be encumbered;in the case of a possessory security right, possession should be given to the secured creditor; in the case of a non-possessory security right in tangibles, the right should be publicized; in the case of a non-possessory security right in intangibles, control of the right should be given to the secured creditor.
Priority based on possession or control As discussed in chapters IV, Creation of a security right(effectiveness as between the parties) see paras. and V,Effectiveness of a security right against third parties see paras. possessory security rights traditionally have been an important component of the secured transactions laws of most jurisdictions.
With respect to security rights in tangible property, most States draw a distinction between possessory andnon-possessory security rights for the definitions of"non-possessory security right" and"possessory security right", see para. 19 above.
As to paragraph 45, it was suggested that it should be revised to acknowledge that, in reforming their secured transactions laws, States could enact a single law dealing with both possessory and non-possessory security rights orleave in place their law on possessory security and enact a law dealing only with non-possessory rights.
As to possession, publicity or control,it was stated that it needed to be clarified that possession was relevant only for possessory security rights, publicity was relevant for non-possessory security rights(in tangibles) and control for non-possessory security rights in intangibles.