The question pertains to the priority of security interests when a debtor defaults and collateral is subject to multiple claims. In Wisconsin, as under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, the general rule for priority among competing secured parties is that the first to file a financing statement or the first to perfect its security interest prevails. However, certain purchase money security interests (PMSIs) have special priority rules. A PMSI in inventory is perfected when it is perfected and the secured party gives notification to any other secured party who has filed a financing statement covering the goods in question before the date of the filing of the financing statement for the PMSI. In this scenario, Badger Bank has a perfected security interest in all of Dairy Farm’s present and future inventory. When Countryside Credit obtains a PMSI in the specific herd of dairy cows that constitute inventory for Dairy Farm, it must perfect its interest and also provide notification to any previously filed secured parties, like Badger Bank, before the date of Countryside Credit’s filing. If Countryside Credit fails to provide this notification to Badger Bank, its PMSI in the inventory will not have priority over Badger Bank’s earlier perfected security interest. Therefore, Badger Bank retains its priority.

The question concerns the priority of security interests in a mixed collateral situation involving inventory and accounts receivable, specifically under Wisconsin’s Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The scenario presents a purchase-money security interest (PMSI) in inventory and a prior perfected security interest in all present and after-acquired inventory and accounts. A PMSI generally has priority over a prior conflicting security interest in the same collateral if the PMSI is perfected when the debtor receives possession of the collateral or within a specified grace period. However, the priority extends to proceeds of the inventory, which in this case are the accounts generated from the sale of that inventory. Under UCC § 9-324(a), a PMSI in inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the inventory and also in identifiable proceeds of the inventory, provided the PMSI creditor satisfies the notification requirements of UCC § 9-324(b) regarding the earlier secured party. Wisconsin follows these general UCC principles. In this scenario, AgroFin Corp. has a PMSI in the farm equipment inventory acquired by Badger Farm Supplies. To maintain this PMSI priority over a prior perfected secured party (First State Bank), AgroFin Corp. must have perfected its security interest and provided notification to First State Bank. Assuming AgroFin Corp. complied with the perfection and notification requirements of UCC § 9-324(b), its PMSI in the inventory would have priority. Crucially, this priority extends to the accounts that are proceeds of that inventory, as per UCC § 9-324(a). Therefore, the accounts generated from the sale of the farm equipment by Badger Farm Supplies would be subject to AgroFin Corp.’s superior security interest. First State Bank’s security interest, while perfected in after-acquired inventory and accounts, is subordinate to AgroFin Corp.’s PMSI in the proceeds of the inventory it financed.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts, specifically those that arise from the sale of goods by a manufacturer. Under Wisconsin’s version of UCC Article 9, a security interest in accounts is generally perfected by filing a financing statement in the appropriate jurisdiction. Wisconsin Statutes § 409.310(1) mandates that filing is the method of perfection for security interests in accounts, unless an exception applies. An exception exists for “a significant part of the outstanding accounts of the assignor,” which might suggest perfection by possession or control, but this exception is primarily for assignments of a significant part of the *existing* accounts, not future arising accounts from ongoing sales. Furthermore, even if a significant part of the outstanding accounts were involved, filing remains a valid and often preferred method of perfection. The filing must be made in the jurisdiction where the debtor is located. For a registered organization like a corporation, this is typically the state of its organization. Assuming “Agri-Tech Solutions Inc.” is organized in Wisconsin, the filing would be with the Wisconsin Secretary of State. A purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory requires notification to other secured parties of record with a security interest in the same inventory, but this notification requirement is for perfection in the inventory itself, not the accounts generated from its sale. Therefore, the most effective method for Agri-Corp to ensure its security interest in Agri-Tech’s future accounts is perfected is by filing a UCC-1 financing statement in Wisconsin.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under Wisconsin’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 9-312(b), 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 in which the deposit account is maintained to comply with the secured party’s instructions concerning the deposit account. In this case, the security agreement grants Acme Corp. a security interest in all of its deposit accounts. Acme Corp. maintains its primary checking account at Badger State Bank. Zenith Bank is providing financing to Acme Corp. and requires a security interest in Acme’s deposit accounts. To perfect its security interest, Zenith Bank must obtain control over Acme’s deposit account at Badger State Bank. This can be accomplished by Zenith Bank becoming the bank of deposit for that account, which is unlikely given Acme’s ongoing relationship with Badger State Bank, or by entering into a control agreement with Badger State Bank. A control agreement is an agreement among the bank, the debtor, and the secured party whereby the bank agrees to comply with instructions from the secured party with respect to the deposit account without further consent from the debtor. Without such a control agreement, Zenith Bank’s security interest in the deposit account remains unperfected. Filing a UCC-1 financing statement is generally sufficient for perfection of security interests in most types of collateral, including accounts, chattel paper, and goods, but it is explicitly insufficient for perfection in deposit accounts. Therefore, Zenith Bank’s failure to secure a control agreement with Badger State Bank means its security interest is unperfected, and it would likely be subordinate to a perfected secured party or a buyer of the account.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts, specifically when a debtor is located in Wisconsin and the secured party files a financing statement in Wisconsin. Under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as adopted in Wisconsin (Wis. Stat. § 409.301 et seq.), the general rule for perfection of a security interest in accounts is that perfection is achieved by filing a financing statement in the jurisdiction where the debtor is located. For a registered organization like a corporation, its location is its jurisdiction of organization. If the debtor, “Agri-Solutions Inc.,” is a Wisconsin corporation, its location is Wisconsin. Therefore, a financing statement filed in the Wisconsin Secretary of State’s office would be the proper place to perfect a security interest in Agri-Solutions Inc.’s accounts. The fact that the collateral (accounts) is intangible and may arise from transactions with parties in other states, such as Illinois or Minnesota, does not alter the location of the debtor for perfection purposes under the UCC’s default rules. The secured party’s knowledge of potential out-of-state transactions is relevant for enforcement and collection, but not for the initial perfection of the security interest in the accounts themselves, which is tied to the debtor’s location. Filing in Illinois or Minnesota would be incorrect for perfection of a security interest in accounts of a Wisconsin-domiciled debtor.

The core issue here is the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account. Under Wisconsin’s Article 9, specifically Wis. Stat. § 409.304, 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 bank’s agreement to comply with the secured party’s instructions concerning the deposit account, or when the secured party becomes the assignee of the deposit account. In this scenario, Lakeside Bank has a security interest in the deposit account held by its customer, Lakeside Bank itself, for loans made to Bayside Manufacturing. Lakeside Bank has possession of the deposit account, which constitutes control under Wis. Stat. § 409.104. Therefore, Lakeside Bank has perfected its security interest in the deposit account. The filing of a financing statement is generally not required for perfection of security interests in deposit accounts, as control is the exclusive method. While Bayside Manufacturing is a Wisconsin-based entity, the perfection of the security interest in the deposit account is governed by the location of the bank and the deposit account itself, which is with Lakeside Bank. The fact that Bayside Manufacturing also granted a security interest in its inventory to First National Bank of Milwaukee, which filed a financing statement, is relevant to the priority of security interests in the inventory but does not affect the perfection of Lakeside Bank’s interest in the deposit account.

The core issue here is determining the priority of competing security interests when a debtor defaults. In Wisconsin, as under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a perfected security interest generally has priority over an unperfected one. Perfection is typically achieved by filing a financing statement. However, a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in consumer goods has automatic perfection. For non-consumer goods, a PMSI must be perfected by filing, and this perfection must occur within a specific timeframe to retain its PMSI status against prior perfected security interests. In this scenario, Bank A has a perfected security interest in all of Debtor Corp’s existing and after-acquired inventory, filed on January 15th. This gives Bank A a prior perfected security interest. On February 1st, Equipment Finance Co. (EFC) finances the purchase of new manufacturing equipment for Debtor Corp, taking a security interest in that specific equipment. EFC files its financing statement on February 10th. This filing perfects EFC’s security interest. The crucial point is whether EFC’s security interest qualifies as a PMSI in the equipment and, if so, whether it was perfected in a timely manner to gain priority over Bank A’s earlier, broader security interest. A PMSI in equipment is perfected when it is both in existence and the secured party has filed a financing statement. For EFC to have priority over Bank A’s pre-existing, perfected security interest in after-acquired property that includes this equipment, EFC’s PMSI must be perfected within 20 days after the debtor receives possession of the collateral. Since EFC financed the purchase on February 1st and filed on February 10th, this filing occurred within the 20-day window. Therefore, EFC’s PMSI in the manufacturing equipment has priority over Bank A’s earlier, general security interest in after-acquired inventory, as EFC’s perfection relates back to the date Debtor Corp received possession of the equipment, provided EFC’s security interest is indeed a PMSI in that specific equipment.

The question pertains to the perfection of a security interest in a motor vehicle titled in Wisconsin. Under Wisconsin’s Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, specifically Wis. Stat. § 409.311(1)(b) and Wis. Stat. § 409.311(2), a security interest in a motor vehicle that is subject to a certificate of title statute of a state (like Wisconsin’s motor vehicle titling laws) is generally perfected by compliance with the certificate of title statute. This typically involves having the security interest noted on the certificate of title. Filing a UCC-1 financing statement with the Wisconsin Secretary of State is the general rule for perfection of security interests in personal property, but for goods covered by a certificate of title statute, the certificate of title method preempts the UCC filing method. Therefore, to establish a continuously perfected security interest in the described vehicle, the lender must ensure the security interest is properly noted on the Wisconsin certificate of title. If the lender only filed a UCC-1 financing statement and did not have the lien noted on the title, their security interest would not be perfected against a buyer who takes possession of the vehicle free of the unperfected security interest, assuming the buyer qualified for such protection. The continuous perfection requires the lien to be on the title.

The question revolves around the concept of perfection of a security interest in goods that are to become fixtures. Under Wisconsin’s Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9, a security interest in fixtures is perfected by a fixture filing. A fixture filing is a financing statement that covers goods that are or are to become fixtures and meets certain additional requirements. Specifically, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 409.502(1) and (3), a financing statement must provide the name of the debtor, be authorized by the debtor, and provide information that reasonably identifies the collateral. For fixtures, Wis. Stat. § 409.502(1)(c) requires that the financing statement indicate that it covers fixtures and must contain a description of the real property to which the fixtures are or are to become affixed. This description must be sufficient to identify the real property. The financing statement is filed in the office designated by Wis. Stat. § 409.501(1) for the filing of real property records, which is typically the office of the register of deeds in the county where the real property is located. The priority of a security interest in fixtures is generally determined by the time of filing the fixture filing, with a fixture filing generally having priority over conflicting interests in the same fixtures unless an exception applies. The scenario describes a situation where a lender has a security interest in manufacturing equipment that will be installed as fixtures in a factory. The lender files a standard UCC-1 financing statement with the Wisconsin Secretary of State, which is the correct place for perfection of security interests in personal property, but not for fixtures. Since the collateral is to become fixtures, a fixture filing is required for perfection. A fixture filing must be filed in the local real estate records office, not the central UCC filing office, and must include a description of the real property. Therefore, the filing with the Secretary of State is insufficient to perfect the security interest in the fixtures. The correct method of perfection for fixtures is a fixture filing in the appropriate local real estate records.

The question concerns the perfection of a security interest in a motor vehicle titled in Wisconsin. Under Wisconsin law, specifically Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 409, the method of perfecting a security interest in a motor vehicle is governed by the certificate of title statutes, which are an exception to the general filing rules of Article 9. Wisconsin Statutes Section 342.19 dictates that a security interest in a vehicle subject to a certificate of title statute is perfected by compliance with that statute. This typically involves notation of the security interest on the certificate of title by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT). Filing a UCC-1 financing statement with the Wisconsin Secretary of State is generally not the correct method for perfecting a security interest in a titled motor vehicle, as it does not provide notice to subsequent purchasers or encumbrancers who would rely on the certificate of title. While a security agreement is necessary to create the security interest, its perfection in this context is tied to the title notation. Therefore, the most effective method to perfect the security interest in the truck, which is titled in Wisconsin, is by having the lien noted on the certificate of title.

No calculation is required for this question. The scenario involves a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in equipment. Under Wisconsin’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 409.317, a buyer of goods takes free of a security interest if the buyer receives delivery of the goods and does not know of the security interest. However, this protection does not apply to a buyer of goods that is also a buyer in the ordinary course of business if the buyer receives delivery of the goods and has not been notified of the security interest’s existence. A PMSI in equipment generally requires perfection by filing a financing statement to be effective against third parties, including subsequent purchasers who take possession of the collateral. While possession can be a method of perfection for certain collateral, for equipment, filing is typically the primary method. If the secured party perfected its PMSI by filing a financing statement before the debtor delivered the equipment to the subsequent buyer, and the subsequent buyer was not a buyer in the ordinary course of business who received delivery without knowledge, the security interest would likely remain attached and enforceable against the subsequent buyer. Wisconsin law, like most UCC jurisdictions, prioritizes perfection. Since the secured party filed its financing statement, it has established its priority against subsequent transferees who do not qualify for an exception. The debtor’s possession of the equipment prior to sale does not negate the secured party’s perfected interest.

Under Wisconsin’s Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9, a security interest in certain types of collateral, such as accounts or chattel paper, is generally perfected by filing a financing statement. However, possession is another method of perfection for certain collateral, including negotiable documents, goods, instruments, and money. When a secured party obtains possession of collateral, this act of taking and maintaining possession serves as notice to the world of the secured party’s interest, obviating the need for a public filing for perfection. This is particularly relevant for collateral where physical control is feasible and provides a high degree of certainty. For example, if a lender takes possession of a valuable piece of art that serves as collateral for a loan, the lender’s security interest in that art is perfected through possession, without requiring the filing of a UCC-1 financing statement in Wisconsin. This method is often chosen for high-value, tangible assets where the secured party can maintain physical control. The UCC explicitly states that possession is a method of perfection for specific categories of collateral.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in accounts that arise from the sale of goods by a seller located in Wisconsin to buyers located in Illinois. Under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as adopted in Wisconsin (Wis. Stat. § 409.301 et seq.), a security interest must be perfected to be effective against third-party purchasers and lien creditors. Perfection is generally achieved by filing a financing statement or by possession or control, depending on the type of collateral. For accounts, perfection is typically accomplished by filing a financing statement. The question of where to file a financing statement is governed by the “location of the debtor” rule. Wis. Stat. § 409.307 specifies that the law of the jurisdiction where the debtor is located governs perfection and priority. For a registered organization (like a corporation), its location is the jurisdiction whose law governs its internal affairs, which is typically the state of incorporation. For an individual or a partnership, it’s their chief executive office. In this scenario, “DairyDelights Inc.” is a Wisconsin corporation, meaning its location for Article 9 purposes is Wisconsin. The collateral is accounts arising from the sale of cheese. Even though the buyers are in Illinois, the debtor’s location dictates the filing jurisdiction. Therefore, DairyDelights Inc. must file its financing statement in Wisconsin to perfect its security interest in the accounts. The UCC’s choice of law rules for perfection prioritize the debtor’s location to provide a single, predictable place to search for security interests. Filing in Illinois would be incorrect because the debtor is not located there. Filing in both states might be a prudent business practice but is not legally required for perfection under the UCC’s default rules when the debtor is located in only one state. The UCC aims for a single situs for perfection of most types of collateral.

The core issue here is determining the priority of security interests when a debtor defaults. In Wisconsin, as under Article 9 of the UCC, a secured party generally has priority over unsecured creditors. However, the priority among secured creditors is typically determined by the order of filing a financing statement or perfection. In this scenario, Bank A perfected its security interest in the farm equipment by filing a financing statement on March 1st. Farm Credit Services perfected its security interest in the same collateral by filing on April 15th. When the debtor defaults, Bank A, having perfected its interest earlier, generally has priority over Farm Credit Services. The question specifically asks about the effect of Bank A’s filing on Farm Credit Services’ unperfected security interest *before* Farm Credit Services perfected. Wisconsin law, consistent with UCC § 9-322, establishes that a perfected security interest has priority over an unperfected security interest. Therefore, Bank A’s perfected security interest, established by its March 1st filing, takes precedence over Farm Credit Services’ security interest from the moment it was granted, even before Farm Credit Services filed its financing statement. The critical point is that perfection, not just attachment, is key for priority against other secured parties and certain other claimants. Bank A’s filing on March 1st means its interest was perfected as of that date. Farm Credit Services’ security interest attached when it was granted, but it remained unperfected until its April 15th filing. During the period between March 1st and April 15th, Bank A’s perfected security interest in the farm equipment has priority over Farm Credit Services’ unperfected security interest.

This scenario tests the concept of attachment and perfection of a security interest in inventory, specifically focusing on the interplay between a purchase money security interest (PMSI) and after-acquired property clauses in a prior security agreement. In Wisconsin, as under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a security interest attaches when it becomes enforceable against the debtor. This generally occurs when value is given, the debtor has rights in the collateral, and a security agreement is in place. Perfection, which establishes priority against third parties, typically requires attachment and the filing of a financing statement or possession of the collateral. Here, “Farmstead Equipment Inc.” has a perfected security interest in “Agri-Solutions LLC’s” existing and after-acquired inventory. This means Farmstead’s security interest has attached to all inventory Agri-Solutions owns or acquires, and it is perfected by filing. “Harvest Finance Corp.” later provides Agri-Solutions with a loan to purchase new tractors, taking a PMSI in those specific tractors. For Harvest’s PMSI to have priority over Farmstead’s prior perfected security interest in after-acquired inventory, Harvest must meet the requirements of UCC § 9-324. This typically involves filing a financing statement covering the collateral before or within twenty days after the debtor receives possession of the collateral. In Wisconsin, the filing period is twenty days after the debtor receives possession. Since Harvest Finance Corp. filed its financing statement on October 15th, and Agri-Solutions received possession of the tractors on October 1st, Harvest’s filing occurred within the twenty-day grace period. Therefore, Harvest’s PMSI in the tractors is perfected and has priority over Farmstead’s security interest in the after-acquired inventory, as a PMSI in inventory generally takes priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory if the PMSI requirements are met.

The core issue here is the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account held by a debtor. Under Wisconsin’s Uniform Commercial Code, specifically § 409.312(1) and § 409.304(1), a security interest in a deposit account can only be perfected by control. Control is defined in § 409.104. For a deposit account, control is achieved when the secured party is the bank with which the deposit account is maintained, or when the secured party obtains the bank’s agreement to comply with the secured party’s instructions regarding the deposit account. Simply filing a financing statement, as done by AgriBank, is generally insufficient to perfect a security interest in a deposit account. While filing is effective for many types of collateral, deposit accounts are explicitly excluded from the general perfection rules by § 409.312(1), which states that such interests are perfected only as provided in § 409.304. Section 409.304(1) then mandates control. Therefore, because AgriBank only filed a financing statement and did not obtain control over the deposit account held by Badger Farms at First National Bank of Wisconsin, its security interest in the deposit account remains unperfected. This means that if Badger Farms were to become insolvent or if another party with a perfected security interest in the deposit account were to assert their rights, AgriBank’s claim to the deposit account would be subordinate. The perfection of a security interest in a deposit account is a critical aspect of secured transactions law, as it dictates priority and enforceability against third parties.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account under Wisconsin’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 bank’s agreement to comply with the secured party’s instructions regarding the deposit account. In this case, while Badger Bank has a security agreement and possession of the account, it has not obtained control as defined by UCC § 9-104 (as adopted in Wisconsin). Specifically, the debtor, Dairy Farms Inc., has not granted Badger Bank control by agreeing to the bank’s instructions. Instead, Badger Bank is merely holding the account without the necessary control agreement. Furthermore, Creditor Corp. has a perfected security interest in all of Dairy Farms Inc.’s assets, including after-acquired property, and its filing statement covers deposit accounts. Since Badger Bank has not achieved control, its unperfected security interest is subordinate to Creditor Corp.’s perfected security interest. The UCC § 9-314(a) states that a security interest in a deposit account is perfected by control. Without control, the security interest remains unperfected. Wisconsin Statute § 409.104 outlines the ways to obtain control over a deposit account. Since Badger Bank did not satisfy these requirements, its interest is subordinate to Creditor Corp.’s properly perfected security interest.

In Wisconsin, as under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in consumer goods generally does not require filing a financing statement to attain perfection against consumers. However, this exception is narrowly construed. A “consumer good” is defined as goods primarily used for personal, family, or household purposes. When a debtor uses collateral for both business and personal reasons, the classification hinges on the primary use. If the primary use is personal, it’s a consumer good. If the primary use is business, it is not a consumer good. In this scenario, the tractor is purchased by a sole proprietor, Ms. Anya Sharma, who operates a small landscaping business in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. While she might occasionally use the tractor for personal landscaping on her property, the predominant purpose of acquiring a tractor for a landscaping business is commercial. Therefore, the tractor is not a consumer good for purposes of Article 9. Consequently, to perfect its security interest against third parties and other creditors, the secured party, AgriBank, must file a financing statement in accordance with Wisconsin statutes, specifically Wis. Stat. § 409.310(1). Failure to file means AgriBank’s security interest is unperfected, and a hypothetical buyer of the tractor from Ms. Sharma who takes possession of the tractor would take it free of AgriBank’s unperfected security interest under Wis. Stat. § 409.320(1), assuming the buyer is a buyer in the ordinary course of business who is not Ms. Sharma’s agent and has no knowledge of the security interest.

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 Wisconsin’s Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9, a security interest in accounts is generally perfected by filing a financing statement in the appropriate jurisdiction. However, Wis. Stat. § 409.109(4)(d) specifically excludes from Article 9’s scope the sale of accounts as part of a sale of the business out of which they arose. This exclusion is significant because it means that if the accounts are transferred as an integral part of the sale of the entire business, the transfer is not treated as a secured transaction under Article 9, and therefore, a UCC-1 filing is not the primary mechanism for establishing rights in those accounts against third parties. Instead, such transfers are governed by general principles of contract law and property law. The question tests the understanding of this specific exclusion and its implications for perfection.

Under Wisconsin’s Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the perfection of a security interest in certain types of collateral requires filing a financing statement. For accounts, chattel paper, payment intangibles, and promissory notes, perfection is generally achieved by filing a financing statement in the jurisdiction where the debtor is located. The debtor’s location is typically the state of incorporation for a registered organization, the state of its chief executive office for an unregistered organization, or the state of its residence for an individual. In this scenario, “AgriHarvest Solutions Inc.” is a corporation incorporated in Wisconsin. Therefore, to perfect its security interest in the accounts receivable generated by its sales of specialized agricultural equipment, AgriHarvest Solutions Inc. must file its financing statement in Wisconsin. The filing must be made in the office designated by state law, which for most general business filings in Wisconsin is the Secretary of State’s office. The question tests the understanding of the proper filing location for perfection of a security interest in accounts, which is a fundamental aspect of secured transactions law, particularly concerning the location of the debtor. This is distinct from perfection by possession or control, which are applicable to other types of collateral. The concept of “accounts” as defined in UCC § 9-102(a)(2) includes rights to payment for goods sold or leased or services rendered, which is precisely what AgriHarvest Solutions Inc. is dealing with.

The core issue here revolves around the perfection of a security interest in collateral that is subject to a purchase money security interest (PMSI) and the notification requirements under Wisconsin’s version of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Specifically, when a secured party (Bank of Wisconsin) has a prior perfected security interest in inventory, and a new lender (Agri-Financers, Inc.) provides financing for new inventory that is subject to a PMSI, the Agri-Financers, Inc. must take specific steps to ensure its PMSI has priority over the Bank of Wisconsin’s existing security interest. Under Wisconsin Stat. § 409.324(2), a PMSI in inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory if certain conditions are met. These conditions include that the PMSI holder must have perfected its security interest when the debtor received possession of the inventory. Crucially, the PMSI holder must also give an authenticated notification to any holder of a conflicting security interest in the inventory. This notification must state that the PMSI holder expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of a described type, and this notification must be sent within six months before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. In this scenario, Agri-Financers, Inc. has a PMSI in the new harvesting equipment. The Bank of Wisconsin has a prior perfected security interest in all of the debtor’s existing and after-acquired inventory. Agri-Financers, Inc. filed its financing statement before the debtor received possession of the new equipment, thus perfecting its PMSI. However, the critical step for priority over the Bank of Wisconsin’s conflicting interest in the inventory is the notification. Agri-Financers, Inc. sent its notification to the Bank of Wisconsin *after* the debtor received possession of the equipment. This timing is too late according to Wisconsin Stat. § 409.324(2). The notification must be sent *before* the debtor receives possession. Therefore, Agri-Financers, Inc.’s PMSI in the new inventory does not have priority over the Bank of Wisconsin’s prior perfected security interest. The Bank of Wisconsin’s security interest remains superior because Agri-Financers, Inc. failed to satisfy the statutory notification requirement within the prescribed timeframe.

The scenario involves a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory. Under Wisconsin’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 409.312(3), a secured party with a PMSI in inventory must satisfy specific notification requirements to have priority over a prior secured party with a conflicting security interest in the same inventory. These requirements include filing a financing statement before the debtor receives possession of the inventory, and the financing statement must be effective when the debtor receives possession. Additionally, the secured party must send an authenticated notification to any secured party who has filed a financing statement covering the inventory or who has a perfected security interest in the inventory, and this notification must be received by the prior secured party within five years before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. The notification must also state that the sender has or expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor and describe the inventory. In this case, Greenleaf Bank filed its financing statement on April 1st and sent the notification to Badger State Credit on April 5th, which was received by Badger State Credit on April 7th. Since the debtor, “Artisan Woodworks,” received the inventory on April 10th, Greenleaf Bank’s notification was received by Badger State Credit within the five-year window prior to the debtor receiving possession. Therefore, Greenleaf Bank’s PMSI in the inventory is perfected and has priority over Badger State Credit’s previously perfected security interest in after-acquired inventory. The key is that the notification must be received *before* the debtor receives possession, and the filing must be effective *when* the debtor receives possession. Greenleaf Bank met both these requirements.

The core issue here is determining the proper place to file a financing statement when the collateral is a general intangible that arises from a lease of real property located in Wisconsin, and the debtor is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware with its chief executive office in Illinois. Under Wisconsin Statutes Section 409.301(1)(a), a financing statement must be filed in the jurisdiction where the debtor is located. For a registered organization like a limited liability company, its location is determined by the jurisdiction under whose law it is organized. Therefore, even though the leasehold interest is in Wisconsin and the chief executive office is in Illinois, the debtor’s location for filing purposes is Delaware. Wisconsin Statutes Section 409.501(1) dictates that the proper place to file a financing statement to perfect a security interest in collateral is generally in the jurisdiction where the debtor is located. Wisconsin Statutes Section 409.307(1) further clarifies that for registered organizations, the location is the jurisdiction of organization. Thus, the financing statement should be filed in Delaware.

The scenario involves a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory. Under Wisconsin’s version of UCC Article 9, a secured party can obtain a PMSI in inventory if certain conditions are met. For a PMSI in inventory to have priority over prior perfected security interests, the secured party must satisfy specific notification requirements. Wisconsin Statute § 409.324(3) governs this priority. The secured party must have a PMSI in the inventory, and the debtor must have received possession of the inventory. Crucially, before the debtor receives possession of the inventory, the secured party must have given an authenticated notification to any other secured party who has filed a financing statement covering the goods in which the PMSI is claimed. This notification must state that the secured party expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor and must describe the inventory by item or type. In this case, the Bank of Madison had a prior perfected security interest in all of Badger Corp’s inventory. Agri-Financing LLC acquired a PMSI in new inventory delivered to Badger Corp. To gain priority over the Bank of Madison’s prior perfected security interest, Agri-Financing LLC needed to provide the required notification *before* Badger Corp received possession of the inventory. Since Agri-Financing LLC sent its notification after Badger Corp had already received and was in possession of the inventory, its notification was ineffective to establish priority over the Bank of Madison’s prior perfected security interest. Therefore, the Bank of Madison retains its priority.

The question concerns the priority of a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory under Wisconsin’s Article 9. A PMSI grants the secured party special priority rights if certain requirements are met. For inventory, these requirements are outlined in Wisconsin Statutes Section 409.324(3). This section states that a PMSI in inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory, and also over a conflicting security interest in identifiable cash proceeds of the inventory, if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the PMSI must be perfected when the debtor receives possession of the inventory; (2) the PMSI secured party must give an authenticated notification to any other secured party whose security interest is known to the PMSI secured party or who has filed a financing statement covering the inventory or the proceeds before the date of the notification; and (3) the notification must be sent before the delivery of the inventory to the debtor. In this scenario, the debtor, “Dairy Delights,” receives inventory from two suppliers, “Creamy Creations” and “Farm Fresh Foods.” Creamy Creations has a PMSI and perfects it by filing on October 1st. They also send notification to Farm Fresh Foods on October 5th, but Dairy Delights receives the inventory on October 3rd. Farm Fresh Foods, holding a non-PMSI, had filed its financing statement on September 20th. Since Creamy Creations failed to send the notification *before* the debtor received possession of the inventory, their PMSI is not perfected in accordance with the strict requirements of Wis. Stat. § 409.324(3). Therefore, Farm Fresh Foods’ earlier-filed, perfected non-PMSI security interest in the inventory will have priority over Creamy Creations’ unperfected PMSI.

The core issue here is the priority of security interests when a debtor defaults on multiple secured loans. In Wisconsin, as under Article 9 of the UCC, the general rule for priority is first in time, first in right, which is established by the filing of a financing statement or possession of the collateral. However, there are exceptions. When a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory is involved, specific rules apply to maintain its priority. A PMSI grants the secured party a security interest in goods purchased by the debtor with the funds provided by the secured party. For inventory, a PMSI generally retains its priority over earlier perfected security interests if certain conditions are met. These conditions, as per UCC § 9-324, include perfection of the PMSI, notification to the prior secured party, and that the PMSI is perfected when the debtor receives possession of the inventory. In this scenario, Sterling Bank has a prior perfected security interest in all of Elara’s inventory. GreenLeaf Capital then obtains a PMSI in the new organic fertilizer inventory. For GreenLeaf Capital’s PMSI to have priority over Sterling Bank’s earlier perfected security interest in the same inventory, GreenLeaf Capital must have perfected its security interest before the debtor (Elara) received possession of the fertilizer. Additionally, GreenLeaf Capital must have provided notification in writing to Sterling Bank before Sterling Bank received possession of the fertilizer. If GreenLeaf Capital perfected its interest and provided the required notification before Elara received the fertilizer, its PMSI would have priority. If, however, Elara received possession of the fertilizer before GreenLeaf Capital perfected its interest or provided the notification, then Sterling Bank’s earlier perfected security interest would likely maintain its priority. Since the facts state GreenLeaf Capital perfected its PMSI and notified Sterling Bank *after* Elara received possession of the fertilizer, GreenLeaf Capital fails to meet the requirements for PMSI priority in inventory. Therefore, Sterling Bank’s prior perfected security interest prevails.

In Wisconsin, as under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the perfection of a security interest in a deposit account is generally accomplished by control. Control over a deposit account is established when the secured party is the bank in which the deposit account is maintained. Alternatively, control can be achieved if the debtor has agreed in writing that the bank will comply with instructions from the secured party concerning the balance of the deposit account, and the bank has acknowledged this agreement. This “control” provision is crucial because it provides the secured party with the ability to prevent the debtor from withdrawing funds and effectively secures the collateral. If a security interest is not perfected by control, it may be subordinate to a subsequent perfected security interest or the rights of a lien creditor. In this scenario, although Riverfront Bank has a security agreement with Meadowlark Farms, Inc., and the collateral is indeed Meadowlark’s deposit account at Riverfront Bank, the critical element for perfection is control. Since Riverfront Bank is the bank where the account is held, it automatically has control over the deposit account. This automatic control, as defined by UCC § 9-104, perfects Riverfront Bank’s security interest in the deposit account without the need for filing a financing statement or taking any other action beyond having the deposit account at their institution. Therefore, Riverfront Bank’s security interest is perfected from the moment it obtained the security agreement and the deposit account was established at their bank.

The scenario involves a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory. Under Wisconsin’s Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9, a secured party with a PMSI in inventory must satisfy specific requirements to maintain priority over other secured parties, including those with after-acquired property clauses. To achieve this, the secured party must file a financing statement and provide notification to any existing secured party who has filed a financing statement covering the same goods. The notification must be sent before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. This notification informs the prior secured party of the PMSI, allowing them to take action if they wish. In this case, the Bank of Milwaukee has a prior perfected security interest in all of Acme Corporation’s inventory, including after-acquired inventory. Greenleaf Financing provides Acme with a loan to purchase new manufacturing equipment, taking a PMSI in that equipment. For Greenleaf to have priority over the Bank of Milwaukee regarding this new equipment, Greenleaf must have filed its financing statement and sent notification to the Bank of Milwaukee before Acme received the equipment. The question states that Greenleaf filed its financing statement and sent notification to the Bank of Milwaukee on October 1st, and Acme received the equipment on October 5th. This timing satisfies the notification requirement under Wisconsin’s UCC § 409.324(3), which states that a secured party with a PMSI in inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory if the PMSI holder gives notification to any other secured party who has filed a financing statement covering the goods before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. Therefore, Greenleaf Financing will have priority.

The core issue here is determining the proper place to file a financing statement for collateral that is a “general intangible” under Wisconsin’s Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9. Wisconsin, like most states adopting the UCC, follows the general rule that for general intangibles, the proper place to file a financing statement is the jurisdiction where the debtor is located. Wisconsin Statute § 409.301(1)(b) specifies that the location of a debtor is its chief executive office in the United States if it is a registered organization that has only one place of business, or its chief executive office if it has more than one place of business. If the debtor is not a registered organization, its location is its chief executive office. If the debtor has no chief executive office, its location is its residence. In this scenario, the debtor, “Green Valley Dairy,” is a Wisconsin-based corporation. Its chief executive office, the place where its principal business decisions are made and where its management is concentrated, is in Madison, Wisconsin. Therefore, a financing statement perfecting a security interest in Green Valley Dairy’s milk quotas, which are classified as general intangibles, must be filed in the office of the register of deeds in the county of the debtor’s location, or with the Secretary of State if the debtor is a registered organization as defined by Wisconsin law. Since Green Valley Dairy is a corporation, filing with the Wisconsin Secretary of State is the correct method for perfecting a security interest in its general intangibles.

The scenario involves a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in inventory. In Wisconsin, as under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9, a secured party with a PMSI in inventory must satisfy specific requirements to maintain its priority over other creditors. The core issue here is the notification requirement to existing secured parties. Under UCC § 9-324(b) (which is adopted in Wisconsin), a secured party with a PMSI in inventory has priority over a conflicting security interest in the same inventory if certain conditions are met. One of these conditions is that the PMSI secured party must give an appropriate notification to any secured party or lienholder who has filed a financing statement covering the inventory or goods before the date of the filing of the PMSI secured party’s financing statement. This notification must be sent within the six months before the debtor receives possession of the inventory. The notification must state that the sender has or expects to acquire a PMSI in inventory of the debtor and describe the inventory. In this case, the Bank of Madison had a prior perfected security interest in all of Dairy Delight’s inventory. Agri-Fin Corp. acquired a PMSI in new inventory. For Agri-Fin Corp. to have priority over the Bank of Madison’s prior perfected security interest, Agri-Fin Corp. must have sent the required notification to the Bank of Madison within the six-month period preceding Dairy Delight’s receipt of the new inventory. Since Agri-Fin Corp. did not send this notification, its PMSI in the new inventory is subordinate to the Bank of Madison’s prior perfected security interest. Therefore, the Bank of Madison would have priority to the extent of its security interest in the inventory.