Law governing perfection and priority of security interests in deposit accounts. (a) The local law of a bank’s jurisdiction governs perfection, the effect of perfection or nonperfection, and the priority of a security interest in a deposit account maintained with that bank, even if the transaction does not bear any relation to the bank's jurisdiction. (b) The following rules determine a bank’s jurisdiction for purposes of this part: (1) If an agreement between the bank and its customer governing the deposit account expressly provides that a particular jurisdiction is the bank’s jurisdiction for purposes of this part, this article, or Subtitle I of Title 28, that jurisdiction is the bank’s jurisdiction. (2) If paragraph (1) of this subsection does not apply and an agreement between the bank and its customer governing the deposit account expressly provides that the agreement is governed by the law of a particular jurisdiction, that jurisdiction is the bank’s jurisdiction. (3) If neither paragraph (1) nor paragraph (2) of this subsection applies and an agreement between the bank and its customer governing the deposit account expressly provides that the deposit account is

) If neither paragraph (1) nor paragraph (2) of this subsection applies and an agreement between the bank and its customer governing the deposit account expressly provides that the deposit account is maintained at an office in a particular jurisdiction, that jurisdiction is the bank’s jurisdiction. (4) If none of the preceding paragraphs of this subsection applies, the bank’s jurisdiction is the jurisdiction in which the office identified in an account statement as the office serving the customer’s account is located. (5) If none of the preceding paragraphs of this subsection applies, the bank’s jurisdiction is the jurisdiction in which the chief executive office of the bank is located. (Oct. 26, 2000, D.C. Law 13-201, § 101, 47 DCR 7576; Apr. 27, 2013, D.C. Law 19-299, § 11(f), 60 DCR 2634; Apr. 20, 2024, D.C. Law 25-158, § 2(j)(13), 71 DCR 2265.) Effect of Amendments The 2013 amendment by D.C. Law 19-299 substituted 'its customer' for 'the debtor' in (b)(1). Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. Source. New; derived from Section 8-110(e) and former Section 9-103(6). 2. Deposit Accounts.

D.C. Law 19-299 substituted 'its customer' for 'the debtor' in (b)(1). Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. Source. New; derived from Section 8-110(e) and former Section 9-103(6). 2. Deposit Accounts. Under this section, the law of the 'bank’s jurisdiction' governs perfection and priority of a security interest in deposit accounts. Subsection (b) contains rules for determining the 'bank’s jurisdiction.' The substance of these rules is substantially similar to that of the rules determining the 'security intermediary’s jurisdiction' under former Section 8-110(e), except that subsection (b)(1) provides more flexibility than the analogous provision in former Section 8-110(e)(1). Subsection (b)(1) permits the parties to choose the law of one jurisdiction to govern perfection and priority of security interests and a different governing law for other purposes. The parties’ choice is effective, even if the jurisdiction whose law is chosen bears no relationship to the parties or the transaction. Section 8-110(e)(1) has been conformed to subsection (b)(1) of this section, and Section 9-305(b)(1), concerning a commodity intermediary’s jurisdiction, makes a similar departure from former

action. Section 8-110(e)(1) has been conformed to subsection (b)(1) of this section, and Section 9-305(b)(1), concerning a commodity intermediary’s jurisdiction, makes a similar departure from former Section 9-103(6)(e)(i). 3. Change in Law Governing Perfection. When the bank’s jurisdiction changes, the jurisdiction whose law governs perfection under subsection (a) changes, as well. Nevertheless, the change will not result in an immediate loss of perfection. See Section 9-316(f), (g).