The core issue in this scenario revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a vehicle titled in Indiana. Under Indiana’s Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, specifically IC 26-1-9.1-303, perfection of a security interest in goods covered by a certificate of title is generally accomplished by complying with the certificate of title statute. Indiana’s certificate of title statute, found in IC 9-18, requires the notation of the security interest on the certificate of title itself. When a lender finances the purchase of a vehicle and the debtor resides in Indiana, the lender must ensure the security interest is properly noted on the Indiana certificate of title to achieve perfection. Filing a UCC-1 financing statement with the Secretary of State of Indiana, while a common method for perfecting security interests in other types of collateral, is generally insufficient for vehicles already covered by a certificate of title in Indiana. The certificate of title system is designed to provide notice of encumbrances on titled vehicles. Therefore, the lender’s failure to have the security interest noted on the certificate of title means their security interest is unperfected with respect to the vehicle. In such a case, a subsequent buyer who takes possession of the vehicle without knowledge of the unperfected security interest, and who is not a buyer in the ordinary course of business of a dealer, would take the vehicle free of the unperfected security interest. The UCC filing is a general filing system, whereas the certificate of title is a specific system for titled goods. Perfection in Indiana for titled vehicles hinges on compliance with the title statute.

The question concerns the priority of security interests in inventory under Indiana’s Article 9. A buyer in the ordinary course of business (BIOC) takes free of a security interest created by its seller, even if the BIOC knows of the security interest, unless the buyer knows that the sale is in violation of the security agreement and the sale is not authorized by the secured party. In this scenario, “AgriCorp” has a perfected security interest in “Harvest Farms'” entire inventory of grain. “Grain Traders Inc.” is a buyer in the ordinary course of business of grain from Harvest Farms. The security agreement between AgriCorp and Harvest Farms does not prohibit sales of grain in the ordinary course of business. Grain Traders Inc. purchased grain from Harvest Farms, and the transaction was in the ordinary course of business. Even if Grain Traders Inc. had knowledge that AgriCorp held a security interest in the inventory, this knowledge alone does not divest its BIOC status and subordinate its interest to AgriCorp’s security interest. The critical factor is whether Grain Traders Inc. knew that the sale was in violation of the security agreement and that the sale was unauthorized by AgriCorp. Absent such specific knowledge, Grain Traders Inc. takes the grain free of AgriCorp’s security interest. Therefore, Grain Traders Inc. takes the grain free of AgriCorp’s security interest.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a vehicle that is already subject to a prior perfected security interest. In Indiana, as in most states, perfection of a security interest in a motor vehicle typically occurs through notation on the certificate of title, rather than by filing a UCC-1 financing statement. When a subsequent lender takes a security interest in a vehicle already encumbered by a prior perfected security interest, the subsequent lender must ensure their security interest is also perfected in the proper manner to establish priority. If the subsequent lender fails to perfect their interest by having it noted on the certificate of title, their security interest will be subordinate to the prior perfected security interest. The UCC, specifically Article 9, addresses the priority of security interests. Indiana Code § 26-1-9.303-1(c) states that perfection of a security interest in goods covered by a certificate of title occurs when the relevant law provides for indication of the security interest on the certificate of title as a condition or result of the security interest’s becoming effective. Indiana Code § 9-311(a) further clarifies that except as provided in subsection (b), filing of a financing statement is not an effective means of perfection for goods covered by a certificate of title. Therefore, even though the second lender might file a UCC-1, it is the notation on the certificate of title that governs perfection for vehicles. Since the second lender did not have its interest noted on the certificate of title, its security interest remains unperfected with respect to the vehicle. Consequently, in a bankruptcy proceeding, the trustee, acting as a hypothetical lien creditor, will have priority over an unperfected security interest. The trustee’s rights are generally superior to any unperfected security interests.

This question tests the understanding of perfection by possession under Indiana’s Article 9, specifically concerning certificated securities. Under Indiana Code § 26-1-9.1-313(a)(1), a security interest in certificated securities in registered form is perfected when the secured party has possession of the security certificate. The scenario involves a pledge of stock certificates, which are tangible representations of ownership in a corporation. When these certificates are delivered to the secured party, the security interest is perfected. The key is that possession by the secured party, or a person designated by the secured party that is not the debtor, is the method of perfection for certificated securities. Filing a financing statement is not the exclusive or even the primary method for perfecting a security interest in certificated securities. The debtor’s possession would not perfect the security interest for the benefit of the secured party. Therefore, the secured party’s possession of the stock certificates is the act that perfects the security interest in Indiana.

The question pertains to the perfection of a security interest in deposit accounts under Indiana’s Article 9. Indiana follows the UCC’s approach, which generally requires control over the deposit account for perfection. Control is achieved through one of three methods: (1) the secured party is the bank in which the deposit account is maintained; (2) the secured party has obtained the debtor’s agreement to put the deposit account under the secured party’s exclusive control (a control agreement); or (3) the secured party becomes the depositor of record of the deposit account. In this scenario, Zenith Corp. has a security interest in the deposit account held by Hoosier Enterprises at First State Bank. Zenith has not become the bank where the account is held, nor has it become the depositor of record. Zenith has obtained a written agreement from Hoosier Enterprises acknowledging Zenith’s security interest and agreeing to the terms, but this agreement is not explicitly a “control agreement” as defined by Indiana Code § 26-1-9-104(a)(2), which requires the bank to agree to comply with the secured party’s instructions without further consent from the debtor. Simply acknowledging the security interest is insufficient for control. Therefore, Zenith’s security interest in the deposit account is unperfected. Perfection in deposit accounts is critical for priority against other creditors and for enforcement upon default. Without control, Zenith’s security interest is subordinate to a buyer of the account that takes for value and obtains control, or a lien creditor who acquires a lien on the account. The UCC emphasizes that possession or control is paramount for perfection in deposit accounts, differentiating them from other types of collateral like accounts receivable or general intangibles where filing is often the primary method of perfection.

The core issue here is determining the priority of security interests when a buyer of inventory, who has received a notification of a prior security interest, then grants a new security interest in the same inventory to a different lender. Under Indiana’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, specifically concerning inventory, a buyer in the ordinary course of business (BIOC) generally takes free of a security interest created by the seller even though the security interest is perfected and even though the BIOC knows of its existence. However, this protection does not extend to a buyer of farm products from a person engaged in farming operations. In this scenario, the collateral is described as “newly manufactured agricultural equipment,” which falls under the definition of inventory, not farm products. Therefore, Greenfield Agribusiness, as a buyer in the ordinary course of business, takes the equipment free of the security interest held by First National Bank of Indiana. The subsequent security interest granted by Greenfield Agribusiness to Hoosier Capital Partners is a new transaction. Hoosier Capital Partners, by properly filing its financing statement and taking possession of the inventory, perfects its security interest. Since Greenfield Agribusiness acquired the inventory free of First National Bank of Indiana’s prior security interest, Hoosier Capital Partners’ perfected security interest attaches to Greenfield Agribusiness’s ownership interest in the inventory, which is unencumbered by the prior security interest. Thus, Hoosier Capital Partners has priority over the collateral as against First National Bank of Indiana. The UCC 9-320(a) protection for a BIOC is critical here.

In Indiana, when a secured party has a perfected security interest in collateral, and that collateral is sold or disposed of in a manner that does not constitute an “excepted sale” under Indiana Code § 26-1-9.315(a)(1), the security interest generally continues in the collateral. This continuation is a fundamental principle of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in Indiana. The buyer of the collateral takes it subject to the existing perfected security interest unless one of the specific exceptions applies. These exceptions typically include situations where the secured party authorizes the disposition free of the security interest, or where the buyer is a buyer in the ordinary course of business of goods held by a merchant who is not a secured party. Indiana Code § 26-1-9.315(a)(2) explicitly states that a security interest attaches to any identifiable proceeds of collateral. Therefore, even if the collateral itself is transferred, the security interest follows it unless a statutory exception negates it. The proceeds of the sale are also subject to the security interest, as per Indiana Code § 26-1-9.315(a)(2). The key is whether the disposition was authorized by the secured party and whether the buyer qualifies for any statutory protection, such as being a buyer in the ordinary course of business from a seller who is not a merchant in goods of that kind, or if the secured party failed to properly perfect their interest against such a buyer. Without such an exception, the security interest persists.

The core issue here is the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under Indiana Code § 26-1-9.1-312(b), a security interest in a deposit account can only be perfected by control. Control is defined in Indiana Code § 26-1-9.1-104 as the secured party being the bank in which the deposit account is maintained, or by entering into a control agreement with the bank. Filing a financing statement is generally not sufficient for perfection in deposit accounts, as explicitly stated in Indiana Code § 26-1-9.1-312(b)(1). Therefore, the security interest held by the Bank of Indiana, which only filed a UCC-1 financing statement and did not obtain control through a control agreement or by being the depositary bank, is unperfected. The security interest of Hoosier Capital, which obtained control of the deposit account by becoming the bank in which the account was maintained, is perfected. In the event of default and insolvency, the perfected secured party has priority over an unperfected secured party. Thus, Hoosier Capital would have priority.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under Indiana’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 disposition of the funds in the account. In this scenario, Apex Bank has a perfected security interest in the equipment of “Indy Widgets Inc.” and has taken possession of the original financing statement filed in Indiana. However, the collateral also includes a deposit account at “Hoosier Bank” which Indy Widgets Inc. uses for its daily operations. Apex Bank’s security agreement states that the collateral includes “all assets of the debtor,” which would encompass the deposit account. To perfect its security interest in the deposit account, Apex Bank must obtain control over it. Simply having a security agreement covering the deposit account and filing a financing statement does not grant perfection for deposit accounts. Filing is ineffective for perfecting a security interest in deposit accounts. Apex Bank’s actions of taking possession of the original financing statement and having a security agreement are insufficient for perfection of the deposit account. The only means of perfection for a deposit account is control. Therefore, Apex Bank’s security interest in the deposit account remains unperfected.

The core issue here is determining the proper place to file a financing statement for a security interest in a vehicle that is primarily used in a business. Indiana law, like most states adopting Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, generally requires that for goods that are covered by a certificate of title, perfection of a security interest is accomplished by complying with the certificate of title statutes. However, for inventory, the UCC often provides an alternative. Specifically, Indiana Code § 26-1-9.1-303 addresses the location of filing for perfection in goods covered by a certificate of title. It states that if a security interest in a vehicle is perfected by notation on the certificate of title, the security interest is perfected when the notation is made. For goods that are inventory, perfection is typically achieved by filing a financing statement in the jurisdiction where the debtor is located. Indiana Code § 26-1-9.1-307(a) clarifies that the location of the debtor determines the law governing perfection. For a registered organization like a corporation, the debtor is located at its chief executive office. Therefore, a financing statement for inventory, even if it’s titled goods, should be filed at the debtor’s location. Given that “Hoosier Auto Sales LLC” is a registered organization with its chief executive office in Indianapolis, Indiana, the financing statement should be filed centrally with the Secretary of State of Indiana. Filing with the Department of Motor Vehicles or in the county of the vehicle’s physical location would be incorrect for inventory.

The core issue here is determining when a security interest in after-acquired property, specifically inventory, is perfected. Under Indiana’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, a security interest can be perfected in after-acquired property. For inventory, perfection is typically achieved by filing a financing statement. The UCC generally follows a “first-to-file-or-perfect” rule for priority. However, a crucial exception exists for purchase-money security interests (PMSIs) in inventory. A PMSI in inventory is perfected when it is perfected *before* the debtor receives possession of the inventory. Furthermore, to retain priority over a prior perfected security interest in after-acquired inventory, the PMSI creditor must give the required notification to the prior secured party. Indiana’s UCC § 9-324(b) specifies that a secured party with a PMSI in inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory if certain conditions are met. These conditions include: (1) the PMSI is perfected when the debtor receives possession of the inventory; (2) the PMSI secured party gives an authenticated notification to any other secured party that has filed a financing statement covering the inventory or that has a perfected security interest in the inventory; and (3) the notification is sent before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. In this scenario, AgriBank’s security interest in all of Farmer Giles’s existing and after-acquired inventory was perfected by filing on January 1st. On February 1st, CropLoans, Inc. obtained a PMSI in new inventory delivered to Farmer Giles. For CropLoans to have priority over AgriBank’s earlier perfected security interest in this new inventory, CropLoans must have perfected its PMSI and provided the required notification to AgriBank *before* Farmer Giles received possession of the February 1st inventory shipment. Since CropLoans did not file its financing statement until February 15th, which was after Farmer Giles received possession of the inventory on February 1st, and did not provide notification before possession, its PMSI is not perfected in a manner that grants it priority over AgriBank’s prior perfected security interest. Therefore, AgriBank’s security interest has priority.

This scenario involves a conflict between a purchase money security interest (PMSI) and a prior perfected security interest in after-acquired inventory. Under Indiana’s version of UCC Article 9, a PMSI holder generally has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same collateral if the PMSI is perfected when the debtor receives possession of the collateral or within a certain grace period. For inventory, this means filing a financing statement and, if applicable, sending notification to a prior secured party before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. In this case, Horizon Bank had a perfected security interest in all of Apex Manufacturing’s inventory, including after-acquired inventory. This perfection occurred prior to any action by Agri-Credit. Agri-Credit’s security interest in the specialized agricultural components is a purchase money security interest because Agri-Credit financed the acquisition of these specific goods by Apex Manufacturing. To maintain priority over Horizon Bank’s prior perfected security interest in inventory, Agri-Credit needed to perfect its PMSI. For inventory, perfection of a PMSI requires filing a financing statement before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. Additionally, under Indiana Code § 26-1-9.1-324(b), for inventory that will be subject to a security interest held by a secured party that has filed a financing statement covering the inventory, the PMSI holder must give an authenticated notification to the prior secured party. This notification must state that the PMSI holder expects to acquire a security interest in inventory of the debtor and describe the inventory. This notification must be sent before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. Agri-Credit sent its notification on October 15th, which was after Apex Manufacturing received possession of the components on October 10th. Therefore, Agri-Credit failed to satisfy the notification requirement within the prescribed timeframe, losing its PMSI superpriority over Horizon Bank’s prior perfected security interest in the inventory. Consequently, Horizon Bank retains its priority.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts that are part of a sale of a business. Indiana Code § 26-1-9-109(a)(3) specifies that Article 9 applies to a sale of accounts, chattel paper, payment intangibles, or promissory notes. When a business sells its accounts, these accounts are considered collateral under Article 9, even though it’s a sale rather than a traditional loan. Perfection of a security interest in accounts is typically achieved by filing a financing statement in the appropriate jurisdiction, which in Indiana is generally with the Secretary of State. However, Article 9 also provides for automatic perfection in certain limited circumstances, such as a “casual and isolated sale” of accounts. A sale of accounts that is part of a larger transaction, like the sale of an entire business, is generally not considered casual and isolated. Therefore, to ensure priority over subsequent creditors or purchasers, the buyer of the accounts would need to file a financing statement. The failure to file means the security interest is unperfected. Unperfected security interests are subordinate to the rights of a buyer of accounts that receives value and rights to the accounts before perfection. In this case, the buyer of the accounts receives them as part of the business sale, and if they do not have notice of the prior unperfected security interest, their claim would likely be superior. The question asks about the status of the security interest granted to the lender by the seller of the business. Since the lender’s security interest in the accounts was not perfected by filing and the sale of accounts was not a casual and isolated sale, the lender’s security interest remains unperfected. The buyer of the business, who acquired the accounts, would take them free of this unperfected security interest if they are a buyer of accounts that gives value and receives delivery of the collateral (which in the case of accounts means possession or control, but here the transfer is part of the sale of the business itself) without knowledge of the security interest. Therefore, the lender’s security interest is unperfected and subordinate to the buyer’s rights.

The scenario presented involves a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in equipment. Under Indiana law, specifically Indiana Code § 26-1-9-324, a PMSI in goods other than inventory or livestock has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same goods if the PMSI is perfected by filing within twenty days after the debtor receives possession of the collateral. In this case, AgriCorp perfected its security interest on May 15th. The debtor, Harvest Fields Inc., received possession of the combine harvester on April 28th. The period for perfection to maintain PMSI priority is twenty days from the date the debtor receives possession. Calculating the twenty-day period: April has 30 days. Days remaining in April after April 28th: 30 – 28 = 2 days (April 29th, April 30th). Days needed in May: 20 – 2 = 18 days. Therefore, the twenty-day period ends on May 18th. AgriCorp’s perfection on May 15th falls within this twenty-day grace period. Consequently, AgriCorp’s PMSI has priority over any prior unperfected security interest or any security interest perfected after April 28th, unless that interest also qualifies for a PMSI exception. Since FarmLend’s security interest was perfected on April 20th, prior to AgriCorp’s perfection and before Harvest Fields Inc. received possession, FarmLend’s perfected security interest would generally have priority unless AgriCorp’s PMSI exception applies and is properly perfected within the statutory timeframe. AgriCorp’s perfection on May 15th is within the twenty-day window from April 28th, thus preserving its PMSI priority over FarmLend’s earlier perfected security interest in the same collateral, provided FarmLend’s interest was not also a PMSI that met its own perfection requirements. However, the question implies FarmLend’s interest is a general security interest, not a PMSI in the same equipment. The key is that AgriCorp’s perfection within the twenty-day window allows its PMSI to “relate back” to the date the debtor received possession for the purpose of priority against other secured parties, provided the other secured party did not have priority before the debtor received possession. In this specific scenario, FarmLend perfected on April 20th, which is before AgriCorp’s perfection. However, AgriCorp’s PMSI perfection on May 15th is within the twenty-day grace period from when Harvest Fields Inc. received possession on April 28th. This means AgriCorp’s PMSI will have priority over FarmLend’s security interest because AgriCorp perfected within the statutory twenty-day window after the debtor obtained possession of the collateral. The relation-back provision of Indiana Code § 26-1-9-324(a) is critical here. AgriCorp’s PMSI is effective against FarmLend’s prior perfected security interest because AgriCorp perfected within the twenty-day period.

The core issue here is the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account that is maintained by a debtor in Indiana. Under Indiana Code § 26-1-9.1-304(a), a security interest in a deposit account as original collateral can only be perfected by control. Control is defined in Indiana Code § 26-1-9.1-104. Specifically, for a deposit account, control is achieved when the secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained, or the secured party obtains the bank’s agreement to comply with the secured party’s instructions concerning the deposit account, or the secured party becomes the assignee of the deposit account. In this scenario, while the security agreement is valid and the debtor has granted a security interest in the deposit account, the secured party, Argent Financial Group, has not obtained control. Merely filing a financing statement under Indiana Code § 26-1-9.1-310(a) is insufficient for perfecting a security interest in a deposit account. Similarly, possession is not a method for perfecting a security interest in a deposit account. Therefore, Argent Financial Group’s security interest in the deposit account is unperfected.

The core issue revolves around the perfection of a security interest in deposit accounts under Indiana’s Article 9. Indiana Code § 26-1-9-304(a) states that a security interest in deposit accounts as original collateral can only be perfected by control. Control is defined in Indiana Code § 26-1-9-104(a) and generally means the secured party is the depositary bank, or the debtor has agreed to disposition of the funds in the account in favor of the secured party, or the secured party becomes the customer of the depositary bank with respect to the deposit account. In this scenario, Sterling Bank has a security interest in the deposit account held at Meridian Bank. Sterling Bank has not become the customer of Meridian Bank, nor has Meridian Bank agreed to Sterling Bank’s control. The only method for Sterling Bank to perfect its security interest in the deposit account, given it is not the depositary bank, is to obtain control. This is achieved by Sterling Bank entering into a control agreement with Meridian Bank, whereby Meridian Bank agrees to follow Sterling Bank’s instructions regarding the account, or by Sterling Bank becoming the customer of Meridian Bank with respect to that account. Without such an agreement or status, Sterling Bank’s security interest, while valid between Sterling Bank and the debtor, is unperfected against third parties, including a bankruptcy trustee. Filing a UCC-1 financing statement is insufficient for perfecting a security interest in deposit accounts as original collateral under Indiana law. Therefore, Sterling Bank’s security interest remains unperfected.

In Indiana, 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, a security interest in a deposit account can only be perfected by control. Control is defined in Indiana Code § 26-1-9.1-104 as occurring 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. This agreement is often referred to as a “control agreement.” Merely having possession of the account statements or a debit card associated with the account does not grant control. Furthermore, a security interest in a deposit account is generally not perfected by filing a financing statement. Therefore, for a secured party to have a perfected security interest in a deposit account held at a bank in Indiana, they must obtain control over that account, typically through a control agreement with the bank. The scenario describes a secured party taking possession of the account statements and receiving a debit card, neither of which constitutes control under Indiana law.

The core issue revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under Indiana’s 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 bank’s agreement to comply with the secured party’s instructions regarding the deposit account. In this scenario, AgriBank has a perfected security interest in the farm equipment and accounts receivable of Hoosier Harvest Farms, Inc. Hoosier Harvest Farms, Inc. also maintains a deposit account at First State Bank of Indiana. AgriBank attempts to obtain a security interest in this deposit account by filing a UCC-1 financing statement. However, filing is not a method of perfection for deposit accounts. Without obtaining control over the deposit account, AgriBank’s security interest in the deposit account remains unperfected. Therefore, when Hoosier Harvest Farms, Inc. defaults and the deposit account is levied upon by a judgment creditor, the judgment creditor’s lien takes priority over AgriBank’s unperfected security interest in the deposit account. The UCC-1 filing provides perfection for the collateral described in the security agreement that is subject to perfection by filing, such as accounts receivable and farm equipment, but it does not extend to the deposit account itself.

The core issue here is the priority of security interests when a debtor moves collateral into a new jurisdiction. Indiana Code § 26-1-9A-316(a) states that if a security interest is perfected in one jurisdiction, and then the collateral is moved to another jurisdiction, the security interest remains perfected for a period of four months after the change in jurisdiction. After this four-month period, the security interest loses its perfected status unless it is reperfected in the new jurisdiction. In this scenario, Aurora Bank perfected its security interest in the heavy machinery in Indiana. The debtor then moved the machinery to Ohio. Under Indiana Code § 26-1-9A-316(a), Aurora Bank’s perfected security interest in Indiana remains effective in Ohio for four months. If Aurora Bank does not file a new financing statement in Ohio within those four months, its security interest will become unperfected as against a purchaser of the collateral that gives value and receives a notification after the expiration of the four-month period. Since the collateral was moved to Ohio on January 1st, the four-month period would expire on May 1st. If the sale to Buckeye Corp. occurred on June 15th, and Aurora Bank had not reperfected in Ohio, its security interest would be unperfected relative to Buckeye Corp., assuming Buckeye Corp. qualifies as a buyer in the ordinary course or otherwise has priority under Article 9. The question asks about the status of Aurora Bank’s security interest against Buckeye Corp. if no action was taken. Without reperfection in Ohio within the four-month window, Aurora Bank’s security interest is subordinate to a buyer like Buckeye Corp. that takes possession after the lapse. Therefore, Aurora Bank’s security interest is unperfected against Buckeye Corp.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under Indiana’s version of UCC 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 in writing that the bank will comply with the secured party’s instructions regarding the account. In this scenario, Stellar Bank has a perfected security interest in the deposit account because it is the bank where the account is held, thereby possessing control. The financing statement filed by Stellar Bank is a means of perfection for many types of collateral, but for deposit accounts, control is the exclusive method. The security agreement between Stellar Bank and Aurora Corp. establishes the collateral and the intent to create a security interest. The UCC’s priority rules dictate that a continuously perfected security interest generally has priority over unperfected ones, and among continuously perfected security interests, the first to file or the first to perfect generally prevails. Since Stellar Bank has control, its security interest is perfected. Zenith Corp.’s security interest, while perfected by filing a financing statement, is not perfected as to the deposit account because filing is insufficient for perfection in deposit accounts. Therefore, Stellar Bank’s perfected security interest in the deposit account, due to its control, takes priority.

The core issue here is determining the proper place to file a financing statement for collateral that is a “general intangible” under Indiana’s Article 9. Indiana Code § 26-1-9-301 and § 26-1-9-305 dictate that for general intangibles, perfection is achieved by filing a financing statement in the jurisdiction where the debtor is located. Indiana Code § 26-1-9-307 specifies that a registered organization (like a corporation) is located at its chief executive office. If the debtor is an individual, they are located at their principal residence. If the debtor is a registered organization that has not filed a UCC financing statement that indicates a place of business in Indiana, and has no place of business in Indiana, then the debtor is located in Indiana if it has filed a UCC financing statement that indicates a place of business in Indiana, or has no place of business in Indiana, then the debtor is located in Indiana if it has filed a UCC financing statement that indicates a place of business in Indiana. However, the most critical provision for a registered organization is its chief executive office. In this scenario, the debtor, “Hoosier Innovations LLC,” is a registered organization. The UCC generally presumes the debtor’s location for perfection purposes is its chief executive office. If Hoosier Innovations LLC’s chief executive office is in Indianapolis, Indiana, then that is where the financing statement must be filed to perfect the security interest in its patent portfolio (a general intangible). Filing in Delaware, where it is incorporated, would be incorrect for perfection purposes for general intangibles if its chief executive office is elsewhere. Filing at the debtor’s place of business in Illinois would also be incorrect if its chief executive office is in Indiana. Filing at the location of the collateral (the patent itself) is generally not the correct method for general intangibles. Therefore, the correct place to file is the jurisdiction of the debtor’s chief executive office.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts, specifically in the context of Indiana’s adoption of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Under UCC § 9-309(2), a security interest in a security entitlement is a protected- entitlement holder. However, the question pertains to accounts, not security entitlements. UCC § 9-310(a) generally requires filing a financing statement to perfect a security interest in collateral, unless an exception applies. UCC § 9-312(b) provides a limited exception for a security interest created by a health-care provider in healthcare-related receivables, allowing for perfection by control rather than filing. A “health-care-related receivable” is defined in UCC § 9-102(a)(55) as an account, chattel paper, payment intangible, or instrument owing to a health-care provider for the provision of health-care goods or services. In this case, Ms. Albright, a physical therapist, is a health-care provider, and the payments owed to her for her services constitute accounts. The security agreement grants a security interest in these accounts to Mr. Chen. Since the collateral is accounts owed to a health-care provider, and Mr. Chen has obtained control over these accounts by agreement with the account debtors to pay him directly, his security interest is perfected. Control over accounts, as defined by UCC § 9-104(a) in the context of health-care-related receivables, involves the account debtor agreeing to pay the secured party directly. This method of perfection is an alternative to filing a financing statement under Indiana law. Therefore, Mr. Chen’s security interest is perfected by control.

The core issue revolves around the perfection of a security interest in deposit accounts under Indiana’s Uniform Commercial Code, specifically Article 9. Under IC 26-1-9.1-304(a), a security interest in a deposit account as original collateral can only be perfected by control. Control is defined in IC 26-1-9.1-104. For a deposit account, control is achieved if the secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained, or if the secured party obtains the bank’s agreement to comply with the secured party’s instructions concerning the deposit account. In this scenario, Artisan Bank has a security interest in the deposit account of “The Gilded Frame,” a sole proprietorship operating in Indiana. Artisan Bank perfected its security interest by obtaining an authenticated security agreement and by having “The Gilded Frame” deposit all its funds into a specific account at Artisan Bank, with Artisan Bank agreeing to comply only with Artisan Bank’s instructions regarding that account. This arrangement grants Artisan Bank control over the deposit account, satisfying the perfection requirement under IC 26-1-9.1-304(a). Therefore, Artisan Bank’s security interest is perfected. The other options fail to meet the perfection requirements for deposit accounts. A mere security agreement without control does not perfect the interest. Filing a financing statement is generally ineffective for perfecting security interests in deposit accounts as original collateral, although it may be relevant for proceeds. A notification to the bank without the bank’s agreement to comply with the secured party’s instructions does not establish control.

The central issue here is the priority of security interests when a debtor moves collateral from one state to another, and the secured party fails to re-perfect. Indiana Code § 26-1-9A-316 governs the effect of perfection and priority in relation to collateral that has been removed from a jurisdiction. Generally, a security interest that is perfected in one jurisdiction remains perfected for a period of four months after the collateral is moved to another jurisdiction. If the secured party files a financing statement in the new jurisdiction within that four-month period, the perfection continues uninterrupted. However, if the secured party fails to re-perfect within that timeframe, the security interest becomes unperfected in the new jurisdiction. Once unperfected, it generally loses priority over lien creditors and purchasers in the new jurisdiction. In this scenario, the security interest was perfected in Illinois. The collateral was moved to Indiana, and the four-month period would have expired before the judgment lien was obtained. Assuming no financing statement was filed in Indiana within the four-month window, the security interest would have become unperfected in Indiana. A judgment lien creditor, under Indiana Code § 26-1-9A-317, generally takes priority over an unperfected security interest. Therefore, the judgment lien obtained by the Indiana bank would have priority over the previously perfected but now unperfected security interest from Illinois. The explanation does not involve any mathematical calculations.

The core issue here is the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under Indiana’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 secured party obtains the agreement of the bank and the debtor that the bank will comply with instructions directing the disposition of the funds in the account. Filing a financing statement is generally insufficient for perfection in deposit accounts. Therefore, even though Stellar Corp filed a UCC-1 financing statement, this action does not perfect their security interest in the deposit account held at First National Bank of Indiana. The security interest remains unperfected with respect to the deposit account.

The core issue here revolves around the priority of security interests when a debtor defaults and the collateral is inventory. Under Indiana’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, a buyer in the ordinary course of business takes free of a security interest created by the seller even though the security interest is perfected and even though the buyer knows of its existence, unless the buyer knows that the sale is in violation of the security agreement. In this scenario, PetroCorp has a perfected security interest in all of Alpha Manufacturing’s inventory. However, PetroCorp’s security agreement specifically permits Alpha Manufacturing to sell inventory in the ordinary course of business. Thus, when Beta Corp purchases the specialized welding equipment from Alpha Manufacturing, it is doing so as a buyer in the ordinary course of business. The sale is not in violation of PetroCorp’s security agreement because the agreement contemplates such sales. Therefore, Beta Corp takes the inventory free of PetroCorp’s security interest. The perfected status of PetroCorp’s security interest and the fact that Beta Corp might have had some general awareness of Alpha’s financial situation or the existence of financing are irrelevant to Beta Corp’s status as a buyer in the ordinary course of business, provided Beta Corp did not know the sale was in violation of the security agreement.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in collateral that is subject to a “control” requirement under Indiana’s Article 9. Specifically, when a secured party has a security interest in deposit accounts, the general rule for perfection is by control. Indiana Code § 26-1-9-314(a) dictates that a security interest in deposit accounts as collateral is perfected by control. Control is defined in Indiana Code § 26-1-9-104. For deposit accounts, 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 to comply with the secured party’s instructions regarding the deposit account. In this scenario, the security agreement grants a security interest in the deposit account, and the bank, as the depositary institution, is also named as a secured party. However, the bank has not entered into a separate agreement to comply with the instructions of the other secured party (Acme Financial) concerning the deposit account. Therefore, Acme Financial’s security interest is not perfected by control. Under Indiana Code § 26-1-9-309(2), a security interest in deposit accounts that is perfected by control is not subject to the other perfection requirements of Article 9. Since Acme Financial has not achieved control, its unperfected security interest is subordinate to the perfected security interest of the bank. The bank’s security interest is perfected by virtue of its status as the depositary bank, which constitutes control under Indiana Code § 26-1-9-104(a)(1). This perfected security interest takes priority over Acme Financial’s unperfected security interest.

In Indiana, under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in consumer goods generally achieves automatic perfection upon attachment. However, this automatic perfection is subject to specific rules, particularly when the collateral is inventory or when the goods are leased. In this scenario, the collateral is restaurant equipment, which is considered equipment, not consumer goods. For equipment, perfection typically requires filing a financing statement. While a PMSI holder in equipment has certain priority advantages, automatic perfection does not apply to equipment. Therefore, to have priority over subsequent secured parties and buyers, the lender must file a financing statement in the appropriate jurisdiction, which in Indiana is the Secretary of State’s office. The question of whether the lender has priority depends on whether they have perfected their security interest. Since the collateral is equipment, automatic perfection does not occur. Filing is the method of perfection for equipment. Without filing, the lender’s unperfected security interest is subordinate to a buyer of goods that receives an ordinary course of business buyer that receives delivery of the goods and has not, before delivery, received notification of the security interest. It is also subordinate to a perfected security interest. The lender’s priority is not established by mere attachment in the case of equipment.

The core issue revolves around the perfection of a security interest in deposit accounts under Indiana’s Article 9. Indiana Code § 26-1-9-312(b) specifies that a security interest in a deposit account as original collateral can only be perfected by control. Control is defined in Indiana Code § 26-1-9-104(a) and generally requires the secured party to obtain an account bank’s agreement to comply with the secured party’s instructions concerning the deposit account, or by becoming the account bank itself. In this scenario, Amelia’s bank, which holds the deposit account, is the secured party. By Amelia pledging the deposit account as collateral and the bank taking possession of the account as security, the bank has obtained control over the deposit account. This control is the exclusive method of perfection for deposit accounts as original collateral under Indiana law. Therefore, the bank’s security interest is perfected.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts that are part of a sale of a business. Under Indiana’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, specifically IC 26-1-9.1-109(a)(3), Article 9 applies to a sale of accounts. When a secured party files a financing statement covering accounts, that filing perfects its security interest in those accounts. The question is whether the secured party’s failure to specifically list “accounts” in its financing statement, while broadly covering “all assets” of the debtor, is sufficient to perfect its interest against a subsequent buyer of those accounts. Indiana UCC 26-1-9.1-308(d) states that a security interest in accounts, chattel paper, or a promissory note that is perfected by filing automatically perfects when it attaches to the collateral. However, the financing statement must still provide adequate notice. A financing statement must indicate the collateral covered. While “all assets” can sometimes be sufficient, the UCC also emphasizes that a buyer of accounts generally takes free of a security interest if the buyer does not know the sale is in violation of the security agreement, and the buyer receives value and possession of the collateral (or control, if applicable). However, the primary issue here is the adequacy of the financing statement’s description. Indiana UCC 26-1-9.1-502(a) requires a financing statement to provide a description of the collateral. A description that generally covers “all assets” or “all personal property” is typically sufficient to perfect a security interest against a competing security interest or lien, but not necessarily against a buyer of specific collateral who takes possession or control without knowledge. In this case, the subsequent buyer purchased the accounts. Under Indiana UCC 26-1-9.1-317(a)(1), a buyer of goods takes free of a security interest that is perfected only if the buyer receives delivery of the collateral without knowledge of the security interest. For accounts, the concept of “possession” is less relevant than the notice provided by the financing statement. The filing of a financing statement provides constructive notice to all subsequent parties, including buyers of accounts. If the financing statement adequately describes the collateral, the buyer of accounts takes subject to the perfected security interest. A description of “all assets” or “all personal property” is generally considered sufficient to cover accounts for filing purposes, thereby perfecting the security interest against subsequent purchasers of those accounts who have notice of the filing. Therefore, the initial secured party’s security interest in the accounts remains perfected and has priority over the subsequent buyer, assuming the financing statement was properly filed and provided sufficient notice of the collateral. The correct answer hinges on the sufficiency of the “all assets” description in the financing statement for perfection against a buyer of accounts. Indiana law, like the UCC generally, validates such broad descriptions for perfection purposes.