Now assume that BIOCOB returns the goods to Dealer under circumstances whereby Dealer once again becomes the owner of the goods. This would be the case, for example, if the goods were defective and BIOCOB was entitled to reject or revoke acceptance of the goods. See Sections 2-602 (rejection), 2-608 (revocation of acceptance). Unless BIOCOB has waived its defenses as against assignees of the chattel paper, SP1's and SP2's rights against BIOCOB would be subject to BIOCOB's claims and defenses. See Sections 9-403, 9-404 [Maine cite section 9-1403, 9-1404]. SP1's security interest would attach again because the returned goods would be proceeds of the chattel paper. Dealer's acquisition of the goods easily can be characterized as "proceeds" consisting of an "in kind" collection on or distribution on account of the chattel paper. See Section 9-102 [Maine cite section 9-1102] (definition of "proceeds"). Assuming that SP1's security interest is perfected by filing against the goods and that the filing is made in the same office where a filing would be made against the chattel paper, SP1's security interest in the goods would remain perfected beyond the 20-day period of automatic perfection. See Section 9-315(e) [Maine cite section 9-1315, subsection (5)].

Because Dealer's newly reacquired interest in the goods is proceeds of the chattel paper, SP2's security interest also would attach in the goods as proceeds. If SP2 had perfected its security interest in the chattel paper by filing (again, assuming that filing against the chattel paper was made in the same office where a filing would be made against the goods), SP2's security interest in the reacquired goods would be perfected beyond 20 days. See Section 9-315(e) [Maine cite section 9-1315, subsection (5)]. However, if SP2 had relied only on its possession of the chattel paper for perfection and had not filed against the chattel paper or the goods, SP2's security interest would be unperfected after the 20day period. See Section