The question pertains to the perfection of a security interest in deposit accounts under Nebraska’s Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Under UCC § 9-312(b), a security interest in a deposit account as original collateral can only be perfected by control. Control is defined in UCC § 9-104. For deposit accounts, control is achieved when the secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained, or when the secured party obtains the bank’s agreement to comply with the secured party’s instructions regarding the deposit account. Filing a financing statement is generally insufficient for perfection of a security interest in a deposit account as original collateral. Therefore, if the bank is not the secured party and has not provided an agreement to the secured party to comply with instructions, the security interest is unperfected, even if a financing statement is filed.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts, specifically when the debtor is located in Nebraska and the collateral is located outside Nebraska, and the secured party is also located outside Nebraska. Under UCC § 9-301, the general rule for perfection of a security interest in accounts is that it is perfected when a financing statement covering the accounts is filed. However, UCC § 9-307 addresses the location of the debtor for purposes of determining the applicable law for perfection. For a debtor located in Nebraska, Nebraska law generally governs perfection and priority. UCC § 9-307(e) states that if the jurisdiction governing perfection of a security interest in collateral is determined by the law of the jurisdiction where the debtor is located, the subsequent change of the debtor’s location to another jurisdiction and the perfection of the security interest in that other jurisdiction are governed by the law of the jurisdiction where the debtor’s location changed. This implies that if the debtor’s location is the primary factor, then the law of the new location would apply. However, for accounts, UCC § 9-307(a) states that the law of the jurisdiction where the debtor is located governs perfection. If the debtor is located in Nebraska, Nebraska law applies. The question specifies that the debtor is located in Nebraska. Therefore, Nebraska’s Article 9 rules for perfection apply. Filing a financing statement in Nebraska is the primary method for perfecting a security interest in accounts. The location of the collateral (outside Nebraska) is generally irrelevant for perfection in accounts, as accounts are generally considered intangible and their location is tied to the location of the debtor. The secured party’s location is also not the determining factor for perfection in this context. Thus, filing a financing statement in Nebraska is the correct method.

In Nebraska, under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a security interest in a vehicle that is titled is generally perfected by notation on the certificate of title, not by filing a UCC financing statement. This is because the certificate of title serves as the primary record for security interests in such collateral. When a lender takes a security interest in a vehicle that is subject to a certificate of title, they must ensure their lien is properly noted on the certificate of title issued by the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles. Filing a UCC financing statement would be ineffective for perfection of a security interest in a vehicle covered by a certificate of title, as it does not comply with the state’s certificate of title statute, which dictates the exclusive method for perfection. Therefore, the creditor’s security interest would be unperfected against a buyer of the vehicle who takes possession of it, even if the buyer had knowledge of the unperfected security interest, because the buyer would take free of the unperfected security interest under UCC § 9-317(b) if they are a buyer not in the ordinary course of business who gives value and receives delivery of the collateral without knowledge of the security interest. However, the question implies the buyer *does* have knowledge. Even with knowledge, perfection via title notation is the exclusive method for vehicles subject to titling laws. Without proper notation on the title, the security interest remains unperfected, and the creditor cannot assert their rights against a subsequent purchaser who takes possession, regardless of the purchaser’s knowledge, because the statutory perfection mechanism was not followed.

The core issue here revolves around the priority of security interests when a debtor defaults on multiple secured obligations, specifically concerning after-acquired property. Under Nebraska’s UCC Article 9, a security interest generally attaches to after-acquired property of the same type as the collateral described in the security agreement. When multiple secured parties have perfected security interests in such collateral, priority is typically determined by the first-to-file or first-to-perfect rule. In this scenario, Bank A has a perfected security interest in all of Farmer Giles’s existing and after-acquired inventory and farm equipment. Bank B later obtains a perfected security interest in Farmer Giles’s after-acquired inventory. When Farmer Giles defaults, both banks have claims to the newly acquired inventory. Bank A’s security interest attached to the after-acquired inventory when it was acquired by Farmer Giles, as it was within the scope of their original agreement. Bank B’s security interest also attached upon acquisition. Since Bank A filed its financing statement first, its perfected security interest has priority over Bank B’s security interest in the after-acquired inventory. This is because the after-acquired property clause in Bank A’s agreement effectively grants them a security interest in the inventory as soon as it comes into existence and is acquired by the debtor, and their prior filing establishes their priority. The fact that Bank B’s interest is also in after-acquired inventory does not alter this priority, as the first-to-file rule applies. Therefore, Bank A has the senior claim.

The core issue here is the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account that is maintained by a debtor in a jurisdiction other than Nebraska, but where the debtor is located in Nebraska. Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as adopted in Nebraska (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 9-304), generally governs the perfection of security interests. For deposit accounts, perfection is achieved by control. Section 9-104 defines control over a deposit account. Section 9-304(a) states that the law of the jurisdiction where the debtor is located governs perfection of security interests in deposit accounts. Nebraska’s UCC § 9-307(e) clarifies that for purposes of perfection and priority, a debtor located in Nebraska is deemed to be located at its chief executive office. However, the situs of the deposit account itself, and the perfection rules for control, are determined by the law of the jurisdiction where the deposit account is maintained. Therefore, if the deposit account is in a bank located in Iowa, Iowa law would govern the perfection by control of that account. The security agreement is between a Nebraska debtor and a Nebraska secured party, and the collateral is a deposit account held in an Iowa bank. Perfection of a security interest in a deposit account requires control. Under UCC § 9-104, control is typically achieved by becoming the bank’s customer with respect to the deposit account, or by an agreement among the debtor, secured party, and bank whereby the bank agrees to comply with the secured party’s instructions. The law governing perfection of security interests in deposit accounts is the law of the jurisdiction where the debtor is located, which is Nebraska. However, the method of achieving control is governed by the law of the jurisdiction where the deposit account is maintained. Since the deposit account is maintained in an Iowa bank, Iowa’s version of UCC Article 9 would dictate the requirements for obtaining control. Therefore, the secured party must comply with Iowa’s perfection rules for deposit accounts to perfect its security interest.

The core issue here is the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account, which is a “special collateral” under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Nebraska, like most states, follows Revised Article 9. Perfection in a deposit account is achieved exclusively by control, as defined in UCC § 9-104. Control is established when the secured party is the bank in which the deposit account is maintained, or when the secured party obtains the agreement of the bank and the depositary. UCC § 9-312(b)(1) states that a security interest in a deposit account as original collateral can only be perfected by control. Filing a financing statement is insufficient for perfection in deposit accounts. Therefore, even though a financing statement was filed, it does not perfect the security interest in the deposit account itself. The security interest in the general intangibles (the promissory note) would be perfected by filing, but the question specifically asks about the deposit account. The agreement granting the security interest is important for attachment, but not for perfection in this specific type of collateral. The absence of control means the security interest in the deposit account is unperfected.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under Nebraska Revised Statutes § 28-3-104, a deposit account is generally not a general intangible, and therefore, perfection of a security interest in it typically requires control, not filing. Control is achieved when the secured party is the bank in which the deposit account is maintained, or when the secured party obtains the bank’s agreement that the bank will follow the secured party’s instructions concerning the deposit account. Filing a financing statement under Article 9 is generally ineffective to perfect a security interest in a deposit account. Therefore, even though AgriBank filed a financing statement, this action does not perfect their security interest in the operating account held at First National Bank of Omaha. The security interest remains unperfected.

The question asks about the priority of a security interest in a “farm product” when the debtor is a farmer in Nebraska. Under Nebraska’s Article 9, farm products are treated differently than other types of collateral. A buyer in the ordinary course of business (BIOC) of farm products takes free of a security interest created by their seller, even if the buyer knows of the security interest, unless the buyer has filed a financing statement and the buyer has received notice of the contents of the financing statement within a year before the purchase. However, the exception for filing and notice applies to security interests in farm products granted by a seller who is a farmer, not by a seller who is not a farmer but whose business involves farm products. In this scenario, the debtor, “Prairie Harvest Farms,” is a farmer, and the collateral is “grain” which constitutes a farm product. “AgriCorp” perfected its security interest by filing. “GrainCo,” a grain elevator, is a buyer of farm products in the ordinary course of business. Nebraska’s UCC § 9-320(a) states that a buyer in ordinary course of business takes free of a security interest created by the seller, even if the buyer knows of the security interest, unless the buyer buys farm products from a person engaged in farming operations, and the buyer receives from the seller a list of the seller’s secured parties that is accurate and complete, and the buyer has reason to know of the list and the security interests. However, the critical aspect here is the specific treatment of farm products and the notice requirements. Nebraska’s UCC § 9-320(a) allows a buyer in the ordinary course of business of farm products to take free of a security interest created by their seller, even if the buyer knows of the security interest. The exception to this rule is if the buyer fails to obtain the list of secured parties as required by the statute. In this case, AgriCorp filed a financing statement. Prairie Harvest Farms, as a farmer, sold its grain to GrainCo. The key is whether GrainCo had reason to know of AgriCorp’s security interest. Since AgriCorp filed a financing statement, and GrainCo is a buyer in the ordinary course of business of farm products, GrainCo takes free of AgriCorp’s security interest UNLESS GrainCo failed to obtain the required list of secured parties from Prairie Harvest Farms, or had reason to know of the security interest despite the list. The statute provides that a buyer of farm products takes free of a security interest unless the buyer has reason to know of the security interest. The filing of a financing statement is generally not sufficient notice for a buyer of farm products to prevent them from taking free of the security interest, unlike other types of collateral. The exception is when the buyer has reason to know of the security interest. The question states GrainCo purchased the grain in the ordinary course of business. The critical factor is whether GrainCo had “reason to know” of AgriCorp’s security interest. The filing of the financing statement by AgriCorp is public notice, but for farm products, the UCC generally requires more specific notice to overcome the BIOC status. Nebraska’s UCC § 9-320(a) states a buyer in ordinary course of business of farm products takes free of a security interest created by the seller, even if the buyer knows of the security interest, unless the buyer buys farm products from a person engaged in farming operations and the buyer receives from the seller a list of the seller’s secured parties that is accurate and complete, and the buyer has reason to know of the list and the security interests. Since AgriCorp filed a financing statement, and GrainCo is a buyer of farm products in the ordinary course of business, GrainCo takes free of AgriCorp’s security interest unless GrainCo had actual knowledge or reason to know of the security interest. The filing of the financing statement by AgriCorp does not automatically make GrainCo have reason to know of the security interest in the context of farm products. Therefore, GrainCo takes free of the security interest.

In Nebraska, under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the perfection of a security interest in deposit accounts is governed by specific rules. Unlike many other types of collateral, a security interest in a deposit account can only be perfected by control. Control is established when the secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained, or when the secured party obtains the bank’s agreement to comply with the secured party’s instructions regarding the deposit account. Filing a financing statement is generally not sufficient for perfection in deposit accounts. Therefore, when a secured party has a security interest in a deposit account and has not obtained control, the security interest remains unperfected. This means that in the event of the debtor’s insolvency or the collateral’s transfer to a buyer, the unperfected security interest will likely be subordinate to the claims of others. Specifically, a buyer of the deposit account takes free of an unperfected security interest.

Under Nebraska Revised Statutes Section 9-310(a), a security interest is generally perfected by filing a financing statement, unless the secured party is in possession of the collateral or the collateral is a deposit account, letter-of-credit right, or certificated security, in which case control is required for perfection. However, certain types of collateral, such as purchase-money security interests in consumer goods, are automatically perfected upon attachment without the need for filing or possession. This automatic perfection is a significant exception designed to facilitate small consumer transactions. In the scenario presented, the security interest is in farm equipment, which is not a consumer good and therefore does not qualify for automatic perfection. Perfection for farm equipment typically requires filing a financing statement in the appropriate jurisdiction, as per Section 9-302. Since the secured party, AgCredit LLC, did not file a financing statement in Nebraska, its security interest in the farm equipment is unperfected. This unperfected status means that AgCredit LLC’s claim is subordinate to the rights of a buyer in the ordinary course of business and also to the rights of a lien creditor, such as a judgment creditor who has levied on the collateral. Nebraska Revised Statutes Section 9-317(a)(2) states that an unperfected security interest is subordinate to the rights of a person who becomes a buyer of the collateral that is not a buyer in the ordinary course of business, and who gives value and receives delivery of the collateral, unless that buyer has notice of the conflicting security interest. More critically for this scenario, Section 9-317(a)(1) establishes that an unperfected security interest is subordinate to the rights of a lien creditor. A judgment creditor who has obtained a judgment and executed on the collateral becomes a lien creditor. Therefore, the judgment lien obtained by Prairie Bank, which attaches to the farm equipment prior to any filing by AgCredit LLC, will have priority over AgCredit LLC’s unperfected security interest.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account under Nebraska’s Article 9. Under UCC § 9-104(a), a security interest in a deposit account as collateral is generally not governed by Article 9, with specific exceptions. However, UCC § 9-313(a) provides that the attachment and perfection of a security interest in deposit accounts as original collateral or as proceeds of other collateral are governed by Article 9. A secured party can perfect a security interest in a deposit account by control. Control is achieved under UCC § 9-104(a)(1) if the secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained. If the secured party is not the bank, control is achieved under UCC § 9-104(a)(2) if the secured party obtains the bank’s agreement to comply with the secured party’s instructions concerning the deposit account. In this case, First National Bank of Omaha holds a security interest in the deposit account and has obtained control by becoming the bank with which the account is maintained. Therefore, its security interest is perfected. The question asks about the perfection of First National Bank of Omaha’s security interest. Since First National Bank of Omaha is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained, it has obtained control over the deposit account under UCC § 9-104(a)(1), which is the method of perfection for deposit accounts when the secured party is the depositary bank. Thus, the security interest is perfected.

In Nebraska, under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the perfection of a security interest in certain types of collateral requires filing a financing statement. For inventory, which is defined as goods held by a person for sale or lease, or raw materials, work in progress, or materials used or consumed in a business, the general rule for perfection is filing a financing statement in the jurisdiction where the debtor is located. Nebraska Revised Statute § 9-307 specifies that the location of the debtor determines the proper place for filing. For a corporation, this is typically the state of incorporation. For a partnership or a registered organization, it is the jurisdiction indicated by its public organic record. If the debtor is an individual, it is their principal residence. The financing statement must contain specific information as outlined in § 9-502, including the name of the debtor and the secured party, and an indication of the collateral covered. For inventory, a broad description is usually sufficient. The effectiveness of the filing is generally for a period of five years, after which it can be renewed by filing a continuation statement. Therefore, if a security interest in inventory is perfected by filing in the correct jurisdiction, and that filing remains effective, the secured party has priority over unperfected security interests and most subsequent lien creditors. The specific scenario involves a Nebraska-based manufacturer, indicating the debtor’s location is Nebraska. Thus, perfection would be achieved by filing a financing statement in Nebraska.

In Nebraska, under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the perfection of a security interest in deposit accounts is a crucial aspect of secured transactions. Unlike many other types of collateral, deposit accounts are generally perfected solely by control. Control is established when the secured party is the bank in which the deposit account is maintained, or when the debtor has agreed in writing to the bank’s disposition of the funds in the account, and the bank complies with the secured party’s instructions. Perfection by filing is not effective for deposit accounts. Therefore, if a secured party fails to obtain control over a deposit account, their security interest remains unperfected. An unperfected security interest is subordinate to the rights of a buyer of the collateral that obtains possession, a lien creditor, and a trustee in bankruptcy. In this scenario, the bank, having control over the deposit account, has a perfected security interest. The other creditor, who only filed a financing statement, has an unperfected security interest in the deposit account because filing is insufficient for perfection in this specific type of collateral. Consequently, the bank’s perfected security interest takes priority over the other creditor’s unperfected security interest in the deposit account.

The core issue here is determining the priority of security interests when a debtor defaults on multiple obligations secured by the same collateral. Under Nebraska’s UCC Article 9, a perfected security interest generally has priority over an unperfected security interest. Priority between two perfected security interests is typically determined by the “first-to-file-or-perfect” rule. In this scenario, AgriBank perfected its security interest in the combine by filing a financing statement on March 1st. Farmer Joe’s Bank, however, only filed a financing statement on April 15th, and its security interest was not otherwise perfected before that date. Therefore, AgriBank’s perfected security interest has priority over Farmer Joe’s Bank’s subsequently perfected security interest. This priority extends to the proceeds of the collateral. Since AgriBank’s security interest was perfected first, it has the primary claim to the proceeds from the sale of the combine. Farmer Joe’s Bank’s claim is subordinate to AgriBank’s perfected interest.

Under Nebraska’s Uniform Commercial Code Article 9, the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account as original collateral requires the secured party to obtain “control” over the account. Control is defined in UCC § 9-104 as occurring when the secured party is the bank in which the deposit account is maintained, or when the secured party obtains the agreement of the bank with which the deposit account is maintained and the secured party becomes the person to whom the deposit account is carried. Alternatively, control is achieved if the secured party becomes the customer of the bank with respect to the deposit account. In this scenario, Agnes Bank is the bank where Beatrice maintains her checking account. By entering into a control agreement with Beatrice, Agnes Bank, as the secured party, establishes control over the deposit account. This control is the method of perfection for a security interest in a deposit account. Filing a financing statement is generally not effective to perfect a security interest in a deposit account. Therefore, Agnes Bank has perfected its security interest by obtaining control.

The question pertains to the priority of security interests when collateral is transferred. Under Nebraska’s Article 9, when a buyer of goods buys them in the ordinary course of business from a seller who is in the business of selling goods of that kind, that buyer takes the goods free of a security interest created by the seller even though the security interest is perfected and even though the buyer knows of the existence of the security interest, unless the buyer knows that the sale is in violation of the security agreement. This is commonly referred to as the “buyer in the ordinary course of business” (BIOC) exception. In this scenario, “Prairie Produce Packers” is a merchant that regularly sells agricultural products. “AgriCorp Financing” has a perfected security interest in the inventory of “Prairie Produce Packers.” “Harvest Haven Farms,” a buyer that regularly buys produce from various suppliers, purchases a quantity of corn from “Prairie Produce Packers.” Assuming Harvest Haven Farms purchased the corn in good faith and without knowledge that the sale violated AgriCorp Financing’s security agreement, Harvest Haven Farms takes the corn free of AgriCorp Financing’s security interest. The key is that Harvest Haven Farms is a buyer in the ordinary course of business from a seller engaged in the business of selling goods of that kind. The fact that AgriCorp Financing’s security interest was perfected is irrelevant to this specific exception. Therefore, Harvest Haven Farms’s security interest, if any were to arise from its purchase, would not be affected by AgriCorp’s prior perfected interest in the inventory. The question asks about the status of Harvest Haven Farms’s interest, which is a buyer’s interest, not a secured party’s interest in the collateral itself. Therefore, Harvest Haven Farms takes the corn free of AgriCorp’s security interest.

The scenario involves a secured party, “AgriLend Corp,” financing a farmer, “Caleb,” in Nebraska. AgriLend perfected its security interest in Caleb’s 2023 corn crop by filing a financing statement in Nebraska. Subsequently, Caleb entered into a contract with “GrainCo,” a buyer of agricultural products, for the sale of his 2023 corn crop. GrainCo is aware of AgriLend’s security interest. Under Nebraska’s UCC Article 9, specifically Neb. Rev. Stat. § 9-320, a buyer in the ordinary course of business (BIOC) of farm products takes free of a security interest created by their seller, even if the security interest is perfected, unless the buyer has knowledge of the security interest. However, the concept of “buyer in the ordinary course of business” typically applies to goods sold in the ordinary course of business by a seller engaged in selling goods of that kind. While GrainCo is a buyer of agricultural products, the protection afforded to BIOC is generally limited when the secured party has complied with any applicable special filing rules for farm products. Nebraska, like many states, has a system for providing notice of security interests in farm products, often through state-specific central filing systems or by requiring the secured party to provide lists of debtors to potential buyers. In this case, AgriLend perfected its interest in Nebraska. GrainCo’s actual knowledge of the security interest is a critical fact. If GrainCo had actual knowledge, it cannot claim BIOC status to take free of the security interest. The question asks about the effect of GrainCo’s knowledge on its ability to take free of the security interest. Since GrainCo has knowledge of AgriLend’s perfected security interest, it does not qualify as a buyer in the ordinary course of business who takes free of the security interest. Therefore, AgriLend’s security interest remains attached to the corn crop. The UCC provides specific protections for buyers of farm products, but these protections are often qualified by the buyer’s knowledge of the security interest or by compliance with specific notice requirements under state law. In Nebraska, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 9-320(a) states that a buyer in ordinary course of business takes free of a security interest created by its seller, but this protection does not extend to a buyer of farm products if the buyer has knowledge of the security interest. GrainCo’s knowledge negates this protection.

The core issue revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under Nebraska’s Article 9, a security interest in a deposit account can only be perfected by control. Control is defined in UCC § 9-104 as either becoming the bank’s customer with respect to the deposit account, or agreeing with the bank that the bank will comply with instructions from the secured party directing disposition of the funds without further consent from the debtor. In this scenario, Prairie Bank has a security agreement with AgriCorp covering its inventory and accounts receivable, which are located in Nebraska. AgriCorp also maintains a deposit account at Frontier Bank, also in Nebraska, which it uses for its operating expenses. Prairie Bank files a UCC-1 financing statement covering all of AgriCorp’s assets, including after-acquired property. However, Prairie Bank never obtains control over AgriCorp’s deposit account at Frontier Bank. Frontier Bank is aware of Prairie Bank’s security interest but has not entered into a control agreement with Prairie Bank. When AgriCorp defaults, Prairie Bank attempts to assert its security interest in the deposit account. Because Prairie Bank failed to obtain control over the deposit account as required by UCC § 9-314 and § 9-104, its security interest in the deposit account is unperfected. Therefore, Prairie Bank cannot claim priority over other creditors with respect to the funds in the deposit account. The filing of a UCC-1 financing statement is generally sufficient for perfection of security interests in most types of collateral, but it is explicitly insufficient for deposit accounts, which require control.

Nebraska’s Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code governs secured transactions. A key aspect is the perfection of security interests. Perfection is generally achieved by filing a financing statement, possession, or control. In the case of deposit accounts, perfection can only be achieved through control, as outlined in Nebraska Revised Statute § 9-312(b)(1). Filing a financing statement is insufficient for perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Similarly, possession of the deposit account itself is not a method of perfection under Article 9. Control is defined in § 9-104 and typically means the secured party is the bank’s customer with respect to the deposit account, or the secured party has agreed with the bank that the bank will comply with its instructions concerning the deposit account without further consent by the debtor. Therefore, for a security interest in a deposit account to be effective against a competing claimant, the secured party must obtain control.

The core issue here is the priority of a security interest in after-acquired property when another creditor has a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in the same collateral. In Nebraska, as under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, a PMSI generally has priority over other security interests in the same collateral. For inventory, UCC § 9-324(b) provides that a PMSI in inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the inventory if certain conditions are met. These conditions include: (1) the PMSI creditor’s security interest is perfected when the debtor receives possession of the inventory; (2) the PMSI creditor gives an authenticated notification to any other secured party whose security interest is perfected in the inventory before the debtor receives possession of the inventory; and (3) the notification states that the debtor will be receiving inventory from the secured party under which the PMSI is or will be created. In this scenario, AgriBank has a perfected security interest in all of Farmer Giles’s current and after-acquired farm equipment. This is a floating lien. On January 15th, FarmCo files a financing statement and perfects its PMSI in a new tractor purchased by Farmer Giles. The tractor is considered after-acquired property under AgriBank’s security agreement. However, FarmCo’s PMSI in the tractor will have priority over AgriBank’s earlier perfected security interest in after-acquired equipment because FarmCo’s security interest is a purchase money security interest in the tractor and it was perfected by filing on January 15th, the date Giles received possession of the tractor. While § 9-324(b) specifically addresses inventory, the general principle of PMSI priority over earlier perfected security interests in the same collateral, even after-acquired property, applies to equipment as well, as per UCC § 9-324(a). The key is that FarmCo’s PMSI in the tractor attaches and is perfected when Giles receives possession of the tractor. AgriBank’s security interest in after-acquired property attaches when the property is acquired, but its priority is subject to the rules of perfection and the special priority afforded to PMSIs. Therefore, FarmCo’s PMSI in the tractor has priority over AgriBank’s security interest in that specific tractor.

The core issue here is the priority of security interests when a debtor operates in multiple jurisdictions and the classification of the collateral. The debtor, “Prairie Harvest Farms,” is located in Nebraska and has granted a security interest in its “all equipment” to “AgriBank.” AgriBank properly filed its financing statement in Nebraska. Subsequently, Prairie Harvest Farms establishes a new operational facility in Iowa and purchases new equipment there, financed by “Midwest Capital,” which takes a security interest in this Iowa-acquired equipment. Midwest Capital files its financing statement in Iowa. The question then becomes which jurisdiction’s law governs the perfection and priority of the security interest in the Iowa-acquired equipment. Under UCC § 9-301, the general rule for goods (which equipment is) is that the law of the jurisdiction where the debtor is located governs perfection. UCC § 9-307(a) states that the chief place of business of a registered organization is its location. Prairie Harvest Farms is a registered organization. Assuming its chief place of business is Nebraska, its location for Article 9 purposes is Nebraska. However, UCC § 9-316(a)(2) addresses situations where a debtor moves collateral or changes its location. UCC § 9-316(b) states that if a debtor changes its location to a jurisdiction other than the one in which the financing statement was filed, and the financing statement would not have been effective had the change not occurred, the effectiveness of the financing statement lapses after a certain period. UCC § 9-316(b)(2) specifies that if the debtor moves to another jurisdiction, the financing statement remains effective with respect to collateral acquired by the debtor before the change in location for one year after the change, and with respect to collateral acquired after the change in location, the financing statement ceases to be effective regarding perfection against a purchaser of the collateral for value after the expiration of the period of effectiveness provided by the law of the jurisdiction to which the debtor has moved. In this scenario, Prairie Harvest Farms acquired new equipment *after* establishing the facility in Iowa. The initial filing by AgriBank was in Nebraska. When Prairie Harvest Farms acquired new equipment in Iowa, and Midwest Capital perfected its security interest in Iowa, the critical question is whether AgriBank’s Nebraska filing provided effective perfection for the Iowa-acquired equipment. UCC § 9-316(c) and (d) are relevant here. UCC § 9-316(c) states that a financing statement filed in the jurisdiction where the debtor was located when the security agreement was entered into remains effective to perfect a security interest in collateral acquired by the debtor after the change in location, if the financing statement would have been effective under the law of the jurisdiction where the debtor was located immediately after the change in location. This means we need to consider the law of Iowa. UCC § 9-316(d) provides that the effectiveness of a financing statement filed in the jurisdiction where the debtor was located when the security agreement was entered into continues for one year after the change in location if the debtor moves to another jurisdiction, or until the financing statement would have lapsed under the law of the original jurisdiction, whichever is earlier. However, UCC § 9-316(e) is more pertinent for collateral acquired *after* the move. It states that a financing statement filed in the jurisdiction where the debtor was located when the security agreement was entered into remains effective to perfect a security interest in collateral acquired by the debtor after the change in location, if the financing statement is filed in the jurisdiction to which the debtor has moved within one year after the change in location. If the debtor moves its location to another jurisdiction, and the secured party fails to file a financing statement in that new jurisdiction within one year after the change in location, the financing statement lapses as to collateral acquired after the change in location. Midwest Capital perfected its security interest in Iowa by filing in Iowa. AgriBank’s initial filing was in Nebraska. Since AgriBank did not file in Iowa within the one-year grace period after Prairie Harvest Farms established its operational facility and acquired equipment in Iowa, its security interest in the Iowa-acquired equipment is subordinate to Midwest Capital’s perfected security interest. The collateral is located in Iowa, and the perfection of the security interest in that collateral is governed by Iowa law after the one-year period from the change in location. AgriBank’s Nebraska filing is no longer effective for perfection purposes in Iowa for collateral acquired after the move. Therefore, Midwest Capital, having properly perfected its security interest in Iowa, has priority. The question asks about the priority of AgriBank’s security interest in the *Iowa-acquired equipment* against Midwest Capital’s security interest. AgriBank’s initial filing was in Nebraska. Midwest Capital’s filing was in Iowa. The key is the perfection of the security interest in the Iowa-acquired equipment. UCC § 9-316(e) dictates that if a debtor moves its location to another jurisdiction, a financing statement filed in the original jurisdiction remains effective for collateral acquired after the move *only if* a financing statement covering the collateral is filed in the new jurisdiction within one year after the change in location. Since AgriBank did not file in Iowa within this timeframe, its security interest in the Iowa-acquired equipment is unperfected as to third parties who have perfected their interests. Midwest Capital perfected its security interest in Iowa. Therefore, Midwest Capital has priority. Final Answer: Midwest Capital has priority because AgriBank failed to file a financing statement in Iowa within one year of the debtor establishing its operational facility and acquiring equipment in Iowa, thus rendering its Nebraska filing ineffective for perfection purposes in Iowa for subsequently acquired collateral. Final Answer Calculation: No mathematical calculation is required for this question. The answer is derived from the application of UCC Article 9 provisions regarding the effect of a debtor changing its location on the perfection of a security interest. Specifically, UCC § 9-316(e) is determinative. Midwest Capital has priority over AgriBank regarding the Iowa-acquired equipment. Midwest Capital has priority over AgriBank regarding the Iowa-acquired equipment. Midwest Capital has priority over AgriBank regarding the Iowa-acquired equipment. Midwest Capital has priority over AgriBank regarding the Iowa-acquired equipment.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under Nebraska’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, a security interest in a deposit account can only be perfected by control. Control is established when the secured party is the bank in which the deposit account is maintained, or when the secured party obtains the agreement of the bank and the depositary bank to comply with instructions from the secured party regarding the account, or when the secured party becomes the assignee of the right to draw on the deposit account. In this scenario, AgriBank has a security interest in the accounts receivable of Cornhusker Farms, which includes the deposit account where those receivables are deposited. AgriBank’s filing a financing statement is generally sufficient to perfect a security interest in accounts, but for deposit accounts, control is the exclusive method of perfection. Since AgriBank did not obtain control over the deposit account by becoming the bank holding the account or by entering into a control agreement with the bank and Cornhusker Farms, its security interest in the deposit account remains unperfected. Therefore, when Cornhusker Farms files for bankruptcy, the trustee, as a hypothetical lien creditor, takes priority over AgriBank’s unperfected security interest in the deposit account. AgriBank’s security interest in the accounts receivable themselves is perfected by its filing, but this perfection does not automatically extend to the deposit account into which those receivables are deposited, as that requires separate perfection by control.

In Nebraska, under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, when a secured party has a security interest in both goods and the accounts generated from their sale, the determination of which collateral is primary for perfection purposes depends on the classification of the collateral and the perfection method. If the secured party perfects by filing a financing statement that covers both the goods (e.g., inventory) and the accounts, and the accounts arise from the sale of that inventory, the filing typically perfects the security interest in both. However, the question of priority between a purchase money security interest in the inventory and a prior perfected security interest in the accounts receivable is crucial. A purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory generally takes priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory if certain conditions are met, including filing a financing statement before the debtor receives possession of the inventory and sending authenticated notification to the prior secured party. When the collateral is “proceeds” of inventory, the perfection in the inventory generally extends to the proceeds. However, if the secured party with the prior interest in accounts also perfects by filing, and their filing predates or is simultaneous with the PMSI filing, and they have properly filed to cover accounts, then their security interest in the accounts would generally have priority over the PMSI holder’s claim to those accounts, even if those accounts arose from the sale of the PMSI-encumbered inventory. This is because accounts are a distinct type of collateral from inventory, and a filing covering accounts is necessary for perfection in accounts. The PMSI holder’s primary perfection is in the inventory. While perfection in inventory often extends to proceeds, accounts are often treated as a separate category of collateral for perfection and priority purposes, especially when a prior filing exists for accounts. Therefore, the secured party with the prior perfected security interest in accounts receivable would likely have priority in the accounts generated from the sale of the inventory, even if another party has a PMSI in the inventory itself, provided the prior secured party’s filing covered accounts and was effective.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a certificate of title motor vehicle under Nebraska’s Article 9. Nebraska Revised Statute § 60-110, which governs the titling of motor vehicles, explicitly states that a security interest in a vehicle subject to titling requirements is generally perfected by notation on the certificate of title. This is a specific exception to the general rule under UCC § 9-310(a) that perfection is achieved by filing a financing statement. When a lender fails to ensure the security interest is properly noted on the certificate of title, their interest remains unperfected. In Nebraska, an unperfected security interest is subordinate to the rights of a buyer in ordinary course of business who takes possession of the collateral without knowledge of the security interest, as per UCC § 9-317(b). Therefore, even though the lender had a properly executed security agreement and potentially filed a financing statement, the failure to perfect through the certificate of title means their interest is not effective against a subsequent buyer who takes possession. The question tests the understanding of the interplay between UCC Article 9 and state-specific certificate of title statutes regarding perfection. The absence of the notation on the title is the critical defect.

The core issue here revolves around the priority of security interests when a debtor defaults on multiple secured loans, and the collateral is a mixed bag of inventory and equipment. Nebraska’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9 dictates the rules for perfection and priority. When a security agreement covers both inventory and equipment, and the secured party has properly perfected its security interest in both categories, the priority is generally determined by the time of filing or possession. In this scenario, Agrifinance Corp. filed a financing statement covering all of Farmer Giles’ assets, including inventory and equipment, on March 1st. This establishes their first-in-time priority for all collateral covered by that filing. Subsequently, FarmTools Inc. perfected a security interest in only the specific farm equipment purchased with their loan on April 1st. Since Agrifinance Corp.’s filing predates FarmTools Inc.’s perfection, Agrifinance Corp. has priority over the farm equipment as well, assuming the equipment was included in Agrifinance’s broad security agreement and financing statement. The critical distinction is that Agrifinance’s security interest and financing statement were comprehensive, covering “all of Farmer Giles’ assets,” which would encompass both the growing crops (inventory) and the tractors and harvesters (equipment). FarmTools Inc.’s security interest was limited to the specific farm equipment they financed. Therefore, when Farmer Giles defaults, Agrifinance Corp. has the senior priority claim to all collateral, including the farm equipment, because their initial filing provided notice to the world of their interest in substantially all of the debtor’s property, including after-acquired property and proceeds. FarmTools Inc.’s later, more specific perfection only grants them priority over collateral not covered by a prior perfected security interest, or over collateral where their perfection is earlier. In this case, Agrifinance’s perfection is earlier for all collateral.

The core issue here is the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under Nebraska’s Article 9, a security interest in a deposit account can only be perfected by control. Control is achieved when the secured party is the bank in which the deposit account is maintained, or when the debtor has agreed to the bank’s disposition of the funds in the account. In this scenario, First National Bank of Omaha has a security interest in all of Farmer Giles’s farm equipment and accounts receivable. Farmer Giles also has a separate deposit account at the same bank, First National Bank of Omaha, which is not otherwise subject to a control agreement with another party. When First National Bank of Omaha takes possession of the collateral and simultaneously holds the deposit account, it obtains control over that deposit account as a matter of law under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 9-104(a)(1). This control perfects its security interest in the deposit account without the need for a separate control agreement or filing a financing statement specifically for the deposit account. The security interest in the deposit account attaches and is perfected at the time the bank obtains control. Therefore, First National Bank of Omaha has a perfected security interest in the deposit account.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account, specifically when the secured party is the bank where the deposit account is maintained. Under Nebraska Revised Statute § 9-312(b)(1), a security interest in a deposit account can only be perfected by control. Control is achieved when the secured party is the bank in which the deposit account is maintained. In this scenario, AgriBank is the secured party and the deposit account of Prairie Farms is held at AgriBank. Therefore, AgriBank has automatically obtained control over the deposit account upon the creation of the security agreement, as no further action is required for perfection when the secured party is the bank itself. This is a key exception to the general perfection rules for deposit accounts. The filing of a financing statement is generally ineffective for perfection of security interests in deposit accounts, as control is the exclusive method. While a financing statement might be filed, it does not confer perfection in this specific context. The debtor’s location in Nebraska is relevant for determining the applicable law under § 9-301, but the perfection method for deposit accounts is uniform across jurisdictions that have adopted Article 9. The fact that Prairie Farms is a cooperative does not alter the perfection rules for its deposit accounts.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts that are proceeds of inventory. Under Nebraska Revised Statute § 28A-310(c), a security interest in accounts that are proceeds of specific collateral, such as inventory, is automatically perfected if the security interest in the original collateral (inventory) is perfected. This is often referred to as “automatic perfection” or “perfection by operation of law” concerning proceeds. Therefore, if First National Bank of Omaha properly perfected its security interest in the farm equipment inventory by filing a financing statement in Nebraska, its security interest in the accounts generated from the sale of that inventory is automatically perfected without the need for a separate filing or action. The timing of the filing for the inventory is crucial. Since First National Bank of Omaha filed its financing statement on January 15th, 2023, this perfection extends to the proceeds. The subsequent filing by Plains State Bank on February 1st, 2023, for the same accounts would be junior to First National Bank of Omaha’s automatically perfected security interest. This principle is a fundamental aspect of Article 9’s treatment of proceeds and aims to avoid the administrative burden of re-perfecting security interests in assets that naturally arise from the disposition of collateral. The UCC’s approach to proceeds is designed to provide a more streamlined and predictable framework for secured creditors.

The core issue revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts that are part of a sale of a business. Under Nebraska’s UCC Article 9, specifically Neb. Rev. Stat. § 9-109(d)(3), Article 9 does not apply to the sale of accounts or chattel paper as part of a sale of a business. This exclusion is significant because it means that a security interest in such accounts is not perfected by filing a financing statement under Article 9. Instead, the perfection and priority of the buyer’s interest in these accounts are governed by common law principles of assignment and transfer, or potentially other statutory provisions outside of Article 9, depending on the specific nature of the business sale. Therefore, a security interest granted in accounts that are part of a business sale, without any other collateral being involved, does not require a UCC-3 financing statement filing for perfection. The perfection is achieved through other means, typically by the buyer taking possession or control of the accounts, or by operation of law as a consequence of the sale itself, depending on the jurisdiction’s specific assignment laws. The question tests the understanding of this specific exclusion in Article 9.

This scenario tests the understanding of perfection and priority in Nebraska secured transactions, specifically concerning the filing of a financing statement and the impact of a purchase-money security interest (PMSI) in inventory. For a security interest to be perfected, a financing statement must be filed, and the debtor must have rights in the collateral. In Nebraska, as under general UCC Article 9, a PMSI in inventory generally requires filing a financing statement *before* the debtor receives possession of the inventory, and the secured party must notify any other secured party of record who has filed a financing statement covering the same goods. However, the prompt states that AgriBank filed its financing statement on May 1st, and the debtor received possession of the grain on May 15th. This timing is generally acceptable for perfection. The critical element here is the notification requirement for a PMSI in inventory. Section 9-324 of the UCC (as adopted in Nebraska, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 9-324) outlines the priority of PMSI. To retain priority over a conflicting security interest in inventory, the PMSI holder must satisfy specific conditions. These include filing before the debtor receives possession of the inventory and sending authenticated notification to any other secured party who has filed a financing statement covering the same inventory or is entitled to priority under Section 9-322. In this case, AgriBank’s financing statement was filed before the debtor received the grain. However, the prompt does not state whether AgriBank provided the required notification to First National Bank, which had a prior-filed financing statement. Without this notification, AgriBank’s PMSI in inventory would not have priority over First National Bank’s earlier-filed security interest. Therefore, First National Bank retains priority. The correct answer is the outcome where First National Bank has priority because AgriBank failed to provide the necessary notification to First National Bank regarding its PMSI in inventory, a requirement under Nebraska law for PMSI priority in inventory over a prior perfected security interest.