Example 13: SP-1 perfects its security interest in Debtor's deposit account by obtaining control. Thereafter, SP-2 files against inventory, (presumably) searches, finds no indication of a conflicting security interest, and advances against Debtor's existing and after-acquired inventory. Debtor uses funds from the deposit account to purchase inventory, which SP-1 can trace as identifiable proceeds of its security interest in Debtor's deposit account, and which SP-2 claims as original collateral. The inventory is sold and the proceeds deposited into another deposit account, as to which SP-1 has not obtained control. As discussed above in Comment 8, Example 11, subsection (c) [Maine cite subsection (3)] does not govern priority in this deposit account. Subsection (d) [Maine cite subsection (4)] also does not govern, because the proceeds at issue (the deposit account) are cash proceeds. See subsection (e) [Maine cite subsection (5)]. Rather, the general rules of subsections (a) and (b) [Maine cite subsections (1) and (2)] govern.

10. Priority in Supporting Obligations. Under subsections (b)(2) [Maine cite subsection (2), paragraph (b)] and (c)(1) [Maine cite subsection (3), paragraph (a)], a security interest having priority in collateral also has priority in a supporting obligation for that collateral. However, the rules in these subsections are subject to the special rule in Section 9-329 [Maine cite section 9-1329] governing the priority of security interests in a letter-of-credit right. See subsection (f) [Maine cite subsection (6)] . Under Section 9-329 [Maine cite section 9-1329], a secured party's failure to obtain control (Section 9- 107 [Maine cite section 9-1107]) of a letter-of-credit right that serves as supporting collateral leaves its security interest exposed to a priming interest of a party who does take control.

11. Unperfected Security Interests. Under subsection (a)(3) [Maine cite subsection (1), paragraph (c)], if conflicting security interests are unperfected, the first to attach has priority. This rule may be of merely theoretical interest, inasmuch as it is hard to imagine a situation where the case would come into litigation without either secured party's having perfected its security interest. If neither security interest had been perfected at the time of the filing of a petition in bankruptcy, ordinarily neither would be good against the trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Code.