| | | further advance, under the original security agreement, against | | the same machinery. A was the first to file and so, under the | | first-to-file-or-perfect rule of Section 9-322(a)(1) [Maine cite | | section 9-1322, subsection (1), paragraph (a)], A's security | | interest has priority over B's, B both as to the February 1 and | | as to the April 1 advance. It makes no difference whether A | | knows of B's intervening advance when A makes the second advance. | | Note that, as long as A was the first to file or perfect, A would | | have priority with respect to both advances if either A or B had | | perfected by taking possession of the collateral. Likewise, A | | would have priority if A's April 1 advance was not made under the | | original agreement with the debtor, but was under a new | | agreement. |
|
| | | Example 2: On October 1, A acquires a temporarily perfected | | (20-day) security interest, unfiled, in a negotiable document in | | the debtor's possession under Section 9-312(e) or (f) [Maine cite | | section 9-1312, subsection (5) or (6)]. The security interest | | secures an advance made on that day as well as future advances. | | On October 5, B files and thereby perfects a security interest | | that previously had attached to the same document. On October 8, | | A makes an additional advance. On October 10, A files. Under | | Section 9-322(a)(1) [Maine cite section 9-1322, subsection (1), | | paragraph (a)], because A was the first to perfect and maintained | | continuous perfection or filing since the start of the 20-day | | period, A has priority, even after the 20-day period expires. | | See Section 9-322 [Maine cite section 9-1322], Comment 4, Example | | 3. However, under this section, for purposes of Section 9- | | 322(a)(1) [Maine cite section 9-1322, subsection (1), paragraph | | (a)], to the extent A's security interest secures the October 8 | | advance, the security interest was perfected on October 8. | | Inasmuch as B perfected on October 5, B has priority over the | | October 8 advance. |
|
| | | The rule in subsection (a) [Maine cite subsection (1)] is more | | liberal toward the priority of future advances than the | | corresponding rules applicable to intervening lien creditors | | (subsection (b) [Maine cite subsection (2)]), buyers (subsections | | (d) and (e) [Maine cite subsections (4) and (5)] , and lessees | | (subsections (f) and (g) [Maine cite subsections (6) and (7)]). |
|
| | | 4. Competing Lien Creditors. Subsection (b) [Maine cite | | subsection (2)] replaces former Section 9-301(4). It addresses | | the problem considered by PEB Commentary No. 2 and removes the | | ambiguity that necessitated the Commentary. Former Section 9- | | 301(4) appeared to state a general rule that a lien creditor has | | priority over a perfected security interest and is "subject to" | | the security interest "only" in specified circumstances. Because | | that section spoke to the making of an "advance," it arguably | | implied that to the extent a security interest secured |
|
|
