The scenario involves a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory. In New Hampshire, as under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) generally, a secured party who has a PMSI in inventory must satisfy specific notification requirements to maintain its priority over a prior perfected secured party. This requirement is found in UCC § 9-324(b). The notification must be sent by the PMSI holder to the prior secured party. The notification must state that the secured party has or will acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor and must describe the inventory by item or type. The notification is effective for five years. In this case, Granite State Manufacturing (GSM) has a prior perfected security interest in all of the debtor’s inventory. The debtor then obtains a loan from Merrimack Valley Bank (MVB), which takes a PMSI in the new inventory. For MVB’s PMSI to be effective against GSM’s prior perfected security interest, MVB must send the required notification to GSM. The question asks about the effectiveness of MVB’s security interest against GSM. The correct answer hinges on whether MVB satisfied the notification requirement. Since the question states MVB perfected its security interest but does not mention any notification sent to GSM, and the scenario explicitly states GSM’s prior perfected security interest, MVB’s security interest in the inventory is subordinate to GSM’s interest because the notification requirement under UCC § 9-324(b) was not met. Therefore, GSM can repossess the inventory.

The core issue here is determining the proper place to file a financing statement for collateral that is a “general intangible” and is owned by a business debtor that is a limited liability company (LLC) formed in New Hampshire. Under New Hampshire’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, specifically RSA 382-A:9-301 and RSA 382-A:9-307, the location of filing for perfection of a security interest depends on the type of debtor and the type of collateral. For a debtor that is an organization with its chief executive office in New Hampshire, the UCC mandates filing in New Hampshire. Furthermore, for collateral classified as a “general intangible,” the UCC requires filing in the jurisdiction where the debtor is located. New Hampshire’s UCC defines the location of a registered organization, such as an LLC, as its state of formation. Therefore, since the debtor is an LLC formed in New Hampshire and the collateral is a general intangible, the financing statement must be filed in New Hampshire.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under New Hampshire’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, specifically RSA 382-A:9-312(b), a security interest in a deposit account can only be perfected by control. Control is defined in RSA 382-A:9-104 and generally means that the secured party is the bank in which the deposit account is maintained, the debtor has agreed to the bank’s disposition of the deposit account, or the secured party becomes the bank’s customer with respect to the deposit account. In this case, Lakeside Bank filed a UCC-1 financing statement covering all of the debtor’s assets, including general intangibles. However, filing is not a method of perfection for deposit accounts. Lakeside Bank did not obtain control over the deposit account. Therefore, its security interest in the deposit account is unperfected. When a debtor defaults and files for bankruptcy, the trustee has the powers of a hypothetical lien creditor. Under 11 U.S.C. § 544, the trustee can avoid unperfected security interests. Since Lakeside Bank’s security interest in the deposit account was unperfected at the time of bankruptcy, the trustee can avoid it. This means the deposit account will become property of the bankruptcy estate, free and clear of Lakeside Bank’s security interest. The question asks about the status of Lakeside Bank’s security interest in the deposit account relative to the bankruptcy trustee. Because the security interest was unperfected, the trustee can avoid it.

The core issue here is the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account held by a debtor. Under New Hampshire’s UCC 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 entering into a control agreement with the bank and the debtor. A control agreement is a written agreement whereby the bank agrees to comply with the secured party’s instructions regarding the deposit account without further consent from the debtor. Simply having the debtor list the bank account as collateral on the security agreement and filing a financing statement is insufficient for perfection in a deposit account. Filing is generally effective for most types of collateral but is explicitly excluded as a method of perfection for deposit accounts under UCC § 9-312(b). Possession is also not a method for perfecting a security interest in a deposit account. Therefore, the only way for Granite State Lending to have a perfected security interest in the deposit account is if they have obtained control, which requires a control agreement with the bank and the debtor, or by becoming the bank’s customer for that account. Without evidence of either, their security interest is unperfected against a hypothetical subsequent perfected secured party or a buyer of the account.

In New Hampshire, as under the Uniform Commercial Code, a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in consumer goods generally becomes automatically perfected upon attachment. However, this automatic perfection is subject to specific rules. For inventory, perfection requires filing a financing statement. For equipment, perfection typically requires filing a financing statement, although in some limited circumstances, possession can suffice. The scenario involves a boat, which is classified as a vehicle under New Hampshire law for registration purposes. While a PMSI in consumer goods is automatically perfected, vehicles requiring registration are an exception to this rule. New Hampshire RSA 382-A:9-311(a)(1) explicitly states that the effectiveness of a security interest in goods that are covered by a certificate of title is governed by New Hampshire’s certificate of title law. New Hampshire RSA 261:98 mandates that a security interest in a vehicle subject to registration must be indicated on the certificate of title to be perfected. Therefore, for the PMSI in the boat to be perfected against third parties, the secured party must ensure the security interest is noted on the boat’s certificate of title. Filing a financing statement alone is insufficient for perfection in this context.

The core issue here is determining the proper place to file a financing statement to perfect a security interest in a motor vehicle that is titled in New Hampshire. New Hampshire law, specifically RSA 382-A:9-303 and RSA 382-A:9-307, governs perfection of security interests in goods covered by a certificate of title. Under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as adopted in New Hampshire, if a certificate of title statute specifies a trier of fact for perfection of security interests in goods covered by the certificate, compliance with the statute is the exclusive method of perfection. New Hampshire’s certificate of title law, RSA 261:98, mandates that a security interest in a vehicle must be noted on the certificate of title to be perfected. Therefore, filing a financing statement with the Secretary of State, as would be done for general intangible collateral or inventory, is not the correct method for perfecting a security interest in a titled motor vehicle in New Hampshire. The security interest is perfected by notation on the certificate of title.

The scenario involves a secured party, Granite State Bank, and a debtor, Maplewood Lumber Inc. Maplewood Lumber has granted a security interest in its inventory to Granite State Bank. Maplewood Lumber then sells a portion of this secured inventory to a buyer in the ordinary course of business, Willow Creek Furniture. Under New Hampshire’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, specifically RSA 382-A:9-320, 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. The question hinges on whether Willow Creek Furniture qualifies as a buyer in the ordinary course of business and if the sale was in violation of the security agreement. Given that Maplewood Lumber’s business is selling lumber, and Willow Creek Furniture is purchasing lumber for its furniture manufacturing, the purchase is clearly in the ordinary course of Maplewood Lumber’s business. There is no information provided to suggest Willow Creek Furniture knew the sale was in violation of the security agreement between Maplewood Lumber and Granite State Bank. Therefore, Willow Creek Furniture takes the lumber free of Granite State Bank’s security interest.

The core issue revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account held at a bank located in New Hampshire, and the priority of competing claims. Under New Hampshire’s UCC Article 9, specifically RSA 382-A:9-104, a security interest in a deposit account can only be perfected by control. Control is achieved when the secured party becomes the bank’s customer with respect to the deposit account, or by entering into a control agreement with the bank whereby the bank agrees to comply with the secured party’s instructions regarding the account, without further consent by the debtor. RSA 382-A:9-314 addresses perfection by control. In this scenario, Sterling Bank’s security interest was perfected by control because it is the bank where the deposit account is located and it has a control agreement with Granite Goods, Inc. The security agreement between Sterling Bank and Granite Goods, Inc. clearly grants Sterling Bank a security interest in the deposit account. When a secured party has control over a deposit account, its security interest is perfected. Furthermore, RSA 382-A:9-327 establishes that a security interest perfected by control of a deposit account has priority over a security interest perfected by any other method, and generally, security interests in deposit accounts perfected by control rank according to the time of obtaining control. As Sterling Bank obtained control first and is the bank where the account is held, its security interest is perfected and has priority. The claim by Merrimack Capital, which likely perfected its interest through a UCC-1 filing covering accounts receivable, would be subordinate to Sterling Bank’s perfected security interest in the deposit account because filing is not a method of perfection for deposit accounts, and control is required. Therefore, Sterling Bank’s perfected security interest in the deposit account has priority.

In New Hampshire, the perfection of a security interest in goods that are part of inventory requires the secured party to file a financing statement. This filing provides notice to third parties of the secured party’s claim. For inventory, a purchase money security interest (PMSI) grants special priority rights. To maintain this priority, the secured party must, in addition to filing, notify any other secured party or lienholder who has previously filed a financing statement covering the same inventory, or who has perfected a security interest in the same inventory, of the PMSI. This notification must occur before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. The notification must be in writing and specify that the secured party has or will acquire a PMSI in inventory, including a description of the inventory. If the debtor has possession of the inventory, the notification must be sent within a specific timeframe prior to the debtor receiving possession. The UCC 9-324(b) outlines the requirements for PMSI priority in inventory. Specifically, for inventory, the PMSI holder must file and give notice to any prior secured party of record before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. The question asks about the requirement for a secured party to retain priority for a PMSI in inventory when another secured party has already filed a financing statement covering the same collateral. The correct answer is that the PMSI holder must file and provide notice to the prior secured party.

In New Hampshire, under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account is generally achieved by control. Control over a deposit account is established when the secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained, or when the secured party obtains the agreement of the bank with which the deposit account is maintained to comply with instructions from the secured party directing the disposition of the funds in the account. This is a crucial distinction from other types of collateral where filing a financing statement is often the primary method of perfection. For deposit accounts, filing is ineffective to perfect a security interest. Therefore, a security interest in a deposit account can only be perfected by control.

In New Hampshire, under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the perfection of a security interest in deposit accounts is a critical aspect of secured transactions. Unlike many other types of collateral, deposit accounts can only be perfected by control, as defined by UCC § 9-104. 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 without further consent by the debtor. This is often accomplished through a “tri-party agreement” or an “account control agreement” where the bank, debtor, and secured party all sign. Filing a financing statement is generally not sufficient for perfection in deposit accounts. Therefore, if the secured party only filed a financing statement and did not obtain control, their security interest in the deposit account is unperfected. In the event of the debtor’s bankruptcy, an unperfected security interest is subordinate to the rights of a bankruptcy trustee, who has the status of a hypothetical lien creditor under 11 U.S.C. § 544. Consequently, the secured party would not have priority over the bankruptcy estate concerning the funds in the deposit account.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account, specifically when the deposit account is held at a bank located in New Hampshire. Under New Hampshire’s Uniform Commercial Code (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 with which the deposit account is maintained, or when the secured party obtains the agreement of the bank with which the deposit account is maintained to comply with the secured party’s instructions concerning the deposit account. The debtor, “Alpine Ventures,” has granted a security interest in its deposit account to “Granite State Bank.” However, Granite State Bank has not taken possession of the funds, nor has it entered into an agreement with Alpine Ventures’ bank, “Merrimack Valley Credit Union,” to control the account. Instead, Granite State Bank has filed a financing statement. While filing a financing statement is generally the method of perfection for many types of collateral, it is explicitly stated in UCC § 9-312(b) that filing is not effective to perfect a security interest in deposit accounts. Therefore, Granite State Bank’s security interest in the deposit account is unperfected. The question asks about the consequence of this failure to perfect. Since the security interest is unperfected, it is subordinate to the rights of a lien creditor. A trustee in bankruptcy, upon the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings, becomes a hypothetical lien creditor under 11 U.S.C. § 544(a). Consequently, the trustee can avoid the unperfected security interest.

In New Hampshire, when a secured party has a perfected security interest in collateral and that collateral is sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of in a transaction that is not authorized by the secured party, the security interest generally continues in the collateral under New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 382-A:9-315(a)(1). This principle is known as the “continuance of security interest” or the “rule against unwarranted disposition.” The secured party’s rights are not extinguished simply because the debtor disposed of the collateral without permission. However, this continuation is subject to certain exceptions, such as if the disposition was authorized or if the buyer qualified for protection under specific provisions like RSA 382-A:9-320, which deals with buyers in the ordinary course of business. In this scenario, the sale was not authorized, and there’s no indication that the buyer is a buyer in the ordinary course of business who would take free of the security interest. Therefore, the security interest remains attached to the snowmobile. The secured party can then proceed to repossess the collateral or seek remedies against the debtor for the unauthorized disposition, while still retaining their rights against the collateral itself.

The scenario describes a situation where a secured party, Granite State Equipment Finance, has a perfected security interest in inventory owned by Maplewood Manufacturing Inc., a New Hampshire-based company. Maplewood then sells some of this inventory to a buyer, North Country Distributors, also in New Hampshire. The core issue is the effect of this sale on Granite State’s security interest. Under New Hampshire’s Uniform Commercial Code Article 9, specifically RSA 382-A:9-320, a buyer in the ordinary course of business takes free of a security interest created by the seller, even if the security interest is perfected and even if the buyer knows of its existence, unless the buyer knows that the sale is in violation of the security agreement. North Country Distributors is purchasing inventory, which is the type of collateral described in the security agreement, and is doing so in the ordinary course of Maplewood’s business. There is no indication that North Country Distributors knew the sale violated the security agreement. Therefore, North Country Distributors takes the inventory free and clear of Granite State Equipment Finance’s security interest. The security interest is extinguished as to that specific collateral upon its sale to a buyer in the ordinary course of business.

In New Hampshire, under UCC Article 9, when a secured party has a perfected security interest in collateral and that collateral is sold in a transaction that does not include a disposition of the collateral in the ordinary course of business, the secured party’s rights generally follow the collateral. This means the security interest continues in the collateral unless the secured party authorized the disposition free of the security interest. New Hampshire UCC § 9-315(a)(1) states that a security interest attaches to any identifiable proceeds of collateral. However, the question specifies a sale not in the ordinary course of business, which implies the buyer likely takes the collateral subject to the perfected security interest unless there was a specific authorization to sell free and clear. The focus here is on the continuation of the security interest in the collateral itself after such a sale. The secured party’s perfected security interest in the antique carousel horses would generally remain attached to those specific horses even after an unauthorized sale not in the ordinary course of business. The secured party would then have rights against the collateral in the hands of the new possessor. The financing statement filed in New Hampshire perfects the security interest in the collateral. The sale of collateral not in the ordinary course of business does not automatically terminate the perfected security interest in the collateral itself.

The core issue here is determining the proper place to file a financing statement to perfect a security interest in a deposit account, which is a type of deposit property under New Hampshire’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9. Under UCC § 9-304, perfection of a security interest in a deposit account can only be achieved by control. Control over a deposit account is typically established when the secured party is the bank with 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 deposit account. Filing a financing statement is generally ineffective for perfection in deposit accounts. Therefore, if the financing statement was filed with the New Hampshire Secretary of State, this action is insufficient to perfect a security interest in the deposit account itself. Perfection requires obtaining control as defined in UCC § 9-104.

In New Hampshire, when a secured party has a perfected security interest in collateral and that collateral is sold in the ordinary course of business by the debtor, the buyer generally takes the collateral free of the security interest. This is a fundamental principle of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in New Hampshire. The UCC aims to facilitate commerce by allowing buyers in the ordinary course of business to acquire goods without the burden of prior security interests, provided certain conditions are met. The key is that the buyer must purchase the goods in good faith, without knowledge that the sale violates the terms of the security agreement, and from a person in the business of selling goods of that kind. This protection is a cornerstone of commercial transactions, ensuring the smooth flow of goods through the marketplace. The secured party’s recourse is typically against the debtor or the proceeds of the sale, rather than against the buyer of the goods. Therefore, the buyer’s acquisition of title is generally unencumbered by the seller’s prior security interest.

The scenario involves a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in equipment granted by Granite State Manufacturing (GSM) to Concord Bank. The key issue is the perfection of this security interest. Under New Hampshire’s Uniform Commercial Code Article 9, a PMSI in equipment is perfected by filing a financing statement in accordance with the UCC’s rules. Section 9-310(a) generally requires filing for perfection of security interests in goods, except for certain limited exceptions not applicable here. Section 9-317(a)(2) addresses when a security interest is subordinate to the rights of a buyer of goods, but that is not the primary issue for perfection against other creditors. Section 9-324 provides specific rules for PMSI priority. For equipment, a PMSI holder can achieve superpriority over earlier perfected security interests in the same collateral if they file a financing statement and, if the collateral is other than inventory, the PMSI holder gives an authenticated notification to any prior secured party of record who has filed a financing statement covering the same collateral. This notification must be sent before the debtor receives possession of the collateral. In this case, Concord Bank filed its financing statement on January 15th, which was after the initial security agreement was signed but before GSM received the equipment. The crucial step for maintaining PMSI superpriority against a prior perfected secured party (like Merrimack Valley Credit Union, which had a blanket lien) is providing notice. The prompt states Concord Bank sent notice to Merrimack Valley Credit Union on January 10th. Since the notice was sent prior to GSM receiving the equipment (which occurred on January 16th), Concord Bank’s PMSI in the specific equipment has priority over Merrimack Valley Credit Union’s earlier blanket lien. Therefore, Concord Bank’s security interest in the new CNC machine is perfected and has priority.

The scenario involves a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory. Under New Hampshire’s UCC Article 9, a PMSI creditor must satisfy specific notification requirements to maintain priority over a prior perfected secured party who also has a security interest in the same inventory. Specifically, New Hampshire law, following the general UCC provisions, requires that the PMSI creditor send an authenticated notification to any secured party who has filed a financing statement covering the goods before the filing of the PMSI creditor’s financing statement. This notification must state that the PMSI creditor expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor and must describe the inventory. The notification is effective for five years from the date it is received. In this case, Granite State Bank has a prior perfected security interest in all of “Maplewood Mills” inventory. “Lakeside Lending” then acquires a PMSI in new inventory to be acquired by Maplewood Mills. For Lakeside Lending’s PMSI to have priority over Granite State Bank’s prior perfected security interest in that same inventory, Lakeside Lending must send the required notification to Granite State Bank before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. If Lakeside Lending fails to send this notification, Granite State Bank’s prior perfected security interest will generally continue to have priority over Lakeside Lending’s PMSI in the inventory. The question asks about the outcome if Lakeside Lending fails to provide the notification. Therefore, Granite State Bank’s prior perfected security interest in the inventory would prevail.

The scenario involves a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory. Under New Hampshire UCC Article 9, for a PMSI in inventory to have priority over a prior perfected security interest in the same collateral, the secured party must satisfy several conditions. First, the PMSI must be perfected by filing a financing statement. Second, the PMSI secured party must give an authenticated notification to any prior secured party who has filed a financing statement covering the same inventory, or who is known by the PMSI secured party to have an existing security interest in that inventory. This notification must be sent before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. The notification must state that the secured party expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor and must describe the inventory. The question states that Granite State Manufacturing (GSM) has a perfected security interest in all of the debtor’s inventory. The debtor then acquires new inventory, and a new lender, Lakes Region Financing (LRF), provides financing for this new inventory, taking a PMSI. LRF filed its financing statement and sent a notification to GSM. The critical element for priority in inventory PMSI is that the notification must be sent *before* the debtor receives possession of the inventory. Since LRF sent the notification to GSM *after* the debtor received possession of the inventory, LRF’s PMSI will not have priority over GSM’s prior perfected security interest. Therefore, GSM’s security interest remains superior.

The core issue here is determining the priority of competing security interests in a retail inventory located in New Hampshire. Under New Hampshire’s Uniform Commercial Code Article 9, a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory generally has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory, provided certain perfection requirements are met. For a PMSI in inventory to achieve this superpriority, the secured party must have perfected its security interest by filing a financing statement *before* the debtor receives possession of the inventory. Additionally, the secured party must have given notification to any other secured party who previously filed a financing statement covering the same goods, or who was known by the PMSI holder to have an existing security interest in the goods, and that notification must state that the PMSI holder expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of that type. This notification must be sent within a reasonable time before or after the debtor receives possession of the inventory. In this scenario, Granite State Appliances (GSA) has a PMSI in the new refrigerator inventory. They filed their financing statement on May 1st and delivered the inventory on May 15th. This filing occurred before the debtor received possession. Furthermore, GSA sent notification to Lakeshore Bank on May 10th, which was before the debtor received possession and within a reasonable time frame. Lakeshore Bank’s earlier filed financing statement on April 15th covers “all inventory,” but it does not qualify as a PMSI in the refrigerator inventory and therefore is subordinate to GSA’s properly perfected PMSI. Consequently, GSA’s security interest has priority.

In New Hampshire, when a secured party has a perfected security interest in collateral and a buyer in the ordinary course of business purchases that collateral, the buyer generally takes the collateral free of that security interest. This is a fundamental principle of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in New Hampshire, designed to facilitate commerce by allowing buyers to acquire goods without the burden of investigating prior security interests. The exception to this rule typically involves certain government-issued licenses or agricultural products. In this scenario, the collateral is specialized manufacturing equipment, not falling under typical exceptions. Therefore, the perfected security interest held by Granite State Manufacturing in the CNC milling machine, even though perfected, does not follow the machine into the hands of a buyer who purchased it in the ordinary course of business from the debtor, Lakeshore Industries. The buyer acquired the equipment free of Granite State Manufacturing’s security interest.

The scenario involves a debtor, “Granite State Manufacturing Inc.,” located in New Hampshire, granting a security interest in its inventory and equipment to “Merrimack Valley Bank.” Granite State Manufacturing Inc. subsequently files for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire. A critical aspect of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as adopted in New Hampshire, concerns the perfection of security interests and their priority. Perfection generally requires filing a financing statement, possession, or control. In this case, Merrimack Valley Bank has a perfected security interest in the collateral. The question revolves around the priority of this perfected security interest against a subsequent lien creditor, specifically a judgment creditor who obtains a lien on the debtor’s property after the bank’s security interest was perfected. Under New Hampshire’s UCC Article 9, a perfected security interest generally has priority over a lien creditor whose lien arises by operation of law or judicial process after the security interest is perfected. This is a fundamental rule of secured transactions, ensuring that a secured party who has taken the necessary steps to perfect its interest is protected against later claimants. The timing of perfection relative to the creation of the lien is paramount. Since Merrimack Valley Bank perfected its security interest prior to the judgment creditor obtaining a lien, the bank’s perfected security interest takes priority. Therefore, the bank can repossess and sell the collateral to satisfy its debt, subject to the bankruptcy court’s supervision. The bankruptcy filing itself does not automatically invalidate a prior perfected security interest; rather, it brings the assets under the court’s jurisdiction and dictates the process for disposition. The priority established under Article 9 continues within the bankruptcy proceedings, although the trustee or debtor-in-possession may have rights to use or sell collateral subject to the secured party’s rights.

In New Hampshire, under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in consumer goods generally does not require filing a financing statement to be perfected. This is an automatic perfection. However, this automatic perfection applies to goods that are primarily used or are intended to be used for personal, family, or household purposes. If a debtor purchases a vehicle for personal use, and the secured party has a PMSI in that vehicle, the perfection rules for motor vehicles in New Hampshire are paramount. New Hampshire RSA 382-A:9-311(a)(2) states that perfection of a security interest in goods covered by a certificate of title must be by compliance with the certificate of title law of New Hampshire. This means that for a vehicle, even if it qualifies as a consumer good and the security interest is a PMSI, perfection is achieved by noting the security interest on the certificate of title, not by filing a UCC-1 financing statement or by automatic perfection. Therefore, if the secured party fails to have the security interest noted on the certificate of title, their security interest in the vehicle remains unperfected, leaving them vulnerable to claims from other parties, including a buyer in the ordinary course of business who takes possession of the vehicle without knowledge of the security interest.

The core issue here is the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under New Hampshire’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 to the bank’s disposition of the funds in the account. In this scenario, Granite State Bank has a security interest in the debtor’s inventory and accounts receivable. To perfect its security interest in the debtor’s deposit account, which was pledged as additional collateral, Granite State Bank must obtain control over that account. Simply filing a financing statement or having possession of the account statement is insufficient for perfection in deposit accounts. The debtor’s agreement to allow the bank to “handle” the account, without more, does not automatically grant the secured party control. Control requires the bank to have the ability to apply the funds to the secured obligation or dispose of them without further action by the debtor. Therefore, Granite State Bank must take steps to establish control, which typically involves becoming the bank of deposit for the account or entering into a control agreement with the debtor and the depositary bank if it is not Granite State Bank itself. The question asks about the perfection of the security interest in the deposit account. Since the bank is the secured party and the deposit account is the collateral, perfection occurs upon obtaining control. The scenario states the debtor agreed to the bank “handling” the account, which is ambiguous but does not definitively establish control under UCC § 9-104. Without a control agreement or the bank being the depositary bank, perfection is not achieved.

In New Hampshire, when a secured party has a perfected security interest in collateral and that collateral is sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of in a transaction covered by UCC § 9-315, the security interest generally continues in the collateral unless the disposition was authorized by the secured party free of the security interest. If the collateral is disposed of in a manner that is not authorized free of the security interest, the security interest attaches to the proceeds of the disposition. UCC § 9-315(a)(1) states that a security interest attaches to collateral “even if the collateral is sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of.” UCC § 9-315(d)(1) further clarifies that a security interest that attaches to collateral continues in the collateral after its disposition, unless the secured party authorized the disposition free of the security interest. In this scenario, the sale of the antique printing press by Granite State Printers to Capital City Press was not stated to be authorized free of the security interest held by First National Bank of Concord. Therefore, the security interest continues in the printing press itself, and also attaches to any proceeds received by Granite State Printers from the sale. The question asks about the status of the security interest in the *proceeds* of the sale, which are the funds received by Granite State. Under UCC § 9-315(a)(2), a security interest also attaches to any identifiable proceeds of collateral. The funds received from the sale of the printing press constitute proceeds. The perfection of the security interest in the original collateral generally extends to the proceeds for a period of 20 days without further action, and can remain perfected beyond that if the proceeds are of a type that are perfected by a filing in the same office as the original filing, or if the secured party files a continuation statement. However, the immediate attachment of the security interest to the proceeds is automatic upon their arising from the disposition of the collateral, provided the disposition was not authorized free of the security interest. Therefore, First National Bank of Concord’s security interest attaches to the cash proceeds received by Capital City Press from Granite State Printers.

The scenario involves a debtor, “Granite State Manufacturing,” located in New Hampshire, who grants a security interest in its inventory and equipment to “Liberty Bank.” Granite State Manufacturing subsequently files for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire. A separate creditor, “Pinnacle Capital,” which is located in Vermont, has a later-filed, unperfected security interest in the same collateral. The core issue is the priority of these competing claims to the collateral in the context of bankruptcy. Under New Hampshire’s version of UCC Article 9, perfection of a security interest is typically achieved by filing a financing statement in the appropriate jurisdiction. For a business like Granite State Manufacturing, whose chief executive office is in New Hampshire, the correct place to file would be with the New Hampshire Secretary of State. Liberty Bank, by filing its financing statement in New Hampshire, has perfected its security interest. Pinnacle Capital’s security interest, while granted, is described as “unperfected.” This means Pinnacle Capital has not taken the necessary steps to establish priority over other creditors, such as filing a financing statement or taking possession of the collateral. In bankruptcy, the debtor’s assets become property of the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy trustee, or a debtor in possession, has the rights of a hypothetical lien creditor at the time of bankruptcy filing. This hypothetical lien creditor generally takes priority over unperfected security interests. Therefore, Pinnacle Capital’s unperfected security interest is subordinate to Liberty Bank’s perfected security interest and also to the rights of the bankruptcy estate, represented by the trustee. Liberty Bank, having a perfected security interest, will have priority over the bankruptcy estate’s claim to the collateral, subject to any superior perfected security interests, which are not present here. The location of Pinnacle Capital in Vermont is relevant for determining where its financing statement would need to be filed if it were perfected, but its lack of perfection is the determinative factor.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a motor vehicle, specifically a boat, under New Hampshire law. Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code governs secured transactions. However, when a certificate of title is required by state law for a particular type of collateral, such as a boat, the UCC explicitly states that perfection of a security interest in that collateral is governed by the certificate of title statute, not by filing a financing statement under UCC § 9-303. New Hampshire RSA 382-A:9-311(a)(2) directs that perfection of a security interest in goods for which a certificate of title is required by New Hampshire law is governed by the certificate of title law. In New Hampshire, boats are considered watercraft and require a certificate of title under RSA 270-D. Therefore, to perfect a security interest in the boat, the secured party must comply with the procedures outlined in the New Hampshire boat titling statutes, which typically involves noting the lien on the certificate of title. Filing a UCC-1 financing statement would be ineffective for perfection of the security interest in the boat itself. The UCC filing is effective for inventory, but not for a consumer-owned vehicle or watercraft that is subject to a certificate of title statute.

In New Hampshire, when a secured party has a perfected security interest in collateral and that collateral is sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of in a transaction not authorized by the secured party, the security interest generally continues in the collateral unless the secured party authorized the disposition free of the security interest. This is governed by New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 382-A:9-315(a)(1). This provision establishes the general rule that a security interest attaches to the collateral and continues despite its disposition, unless the secured party waives its rights. Therefore, if Beatrice’s security interest in the specialized manufacturing equipment was perfected, and the sale to Concord Manufacturing was not authorized by Beatrice, her security interest would continue in the equipment even after its transfer to Concord Manufacturing. The fact that Concord Manufacturing may have been unaware of Beatrice’s security interest is generally irrelevant to the continuation of the perfected security interest, unless Concord Manufacturing qualifies as a buyer in ordinary course of business who takes free of the security interest under specific circumstances not described in this scenario. The perfection of Beatrice’s interest means it is effective against third parties.

This question addresses the perfection of security interests in fixtures under New Hampshire law, specifically concerning the priority of a purchase-money security interest (PMSI) in a fixture against a prior recorded interest in the real property. Under New Hampshire UCC § 9-334, a security interest in fixtures is subordinate to a conflicting interest of an encumbrancer or owner of the real property if the fixture filing is not made before the interest in the real property is recorded. However, an exception exists for a PMSI in fixtures. A PMSI in fixtures is perfected by a fixture filing that is filed before or within twenty days after the goods become fixtures. If this PMSI fixture filing is made within this twenty-day window, it generally has priority over prior recorded interests in the real property. In this scenario, the initial security agreement and financing statement were filed on January 15th, establishing a security interest in the manufacturing equipment. The equipment was later installed as fixtures on February 1st. The fixture filing was made on February 10th. Since February 10th is within twenty days of February 1st (the date the goods became fixtures), the PMSI fixture filing is timely. Therefore, the PMSI in the fixtures has priority over the prior recorded mortgage on the real property.