can acquire from the debtor rights greater than those of the secured party. See generally N.J.S.A 12A:9-301 et seq. None of the concerns addressed by the U.C.C. filing requirements are implicated in the surety context. A construction surety is “secured” not by collateral per se, but rather by the “opportunity, on default, to finish the job and apply any available funds against its cost of completion.” National Shawmut Bank, 411 F.2d at 845-46 (discussing distinctions between Article 9 and sureties). The reasoning that underlies such a result is that, but for the acts of the surety to pay materialmen and laborers and complete the project, none of the contract funds would have ever been owing to the defaulting contractor. See Jacobs v. Northeastern Corp., 416 Pa. 417, 206 A.2d 49 (1965) (<HOLDING>). While it is true that Connecticut’s Proof of
holding that closelyheld stock is a security under chapter 8 of californias ucc holding that article 2 of the ucc preempts common law claims holding that subrogation rights are not security interests under ucc article 9 recognizing that rights under article i section 11 are subject to reasonable limitations holding that with respect to owners summaryjudgment claims against subsequent buyers under ucc  24011 owners reservation of title in himself was limited in effect to reservation of security interest and that failure of owner to perfect his security interest made it subordinate under ucc  9  301lc to rights of buyer not in ordinary course of business