Case Citation
Legal Case Name

ProGrowth Bank, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit2009Docket #781168
558 F.3d 809 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5178 2009 WL 415249

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A creditor’s financing statement contained errors in its specific collateral description but also included an “all assets” clause. The court held the broad “all assets” clause was sufficient on its own to perfect the security interest, as it provided adequate notice to subsequent creditors.

Legal Significance: Establishes that a valid “all assets” clause in a financing statement can perfect a security interest, even if a more specific description of collateral within the same statement contains seriously misleading errors. The notice function of the general clause prevails.

ProGrowth Bank, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Wells Fargo, as collateral agent for Global One, loaned money to a debtor, secured by two annuity contracts. Wells Fargo filed UCC financing statements that correctly named the debtor but contained significant errors in the collateral description: one annuity contract number was incorrect, and both annuities, issued by Fidelity & Guaranty, were mistakenly identified as being issued by Lincoln Benefit Life. However, the collateral description began with a broad clause covering “All of Debtor’s right, title, and interest in and to, assets and rights of Debtor, wherever located…” before listing the specific, erroneous annuity information. Subsequently, ProGrowth Bank loaned money to the same debtor, taking a security interest in the same two annuities, and filed financing statements with a correct description. A priority dispute arose between the two creditors. ProGrowth sought a declaratory judgment that its interest was superior because Wells Fargo’s financing statements were “seriously misleading” under the UCC and therefore failed to perfect its interest. The district court granted summary judgment for ProGrowth.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a financing statement that contains a broad “all assets” clause sufficiently indicate the collateral under UCC § 9-504, thereby perfecting a security interest, even when a more specific description of the collateral within the same statement contains seriously misleading errors?

Yes. The financing statements are not seriously misleading and are sufficient to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does a financing statement that contains a broad “all assets” clause sufficiently indicate the collateral under UCC § 9-504, thereby perfecting a security interest, even when a more specific description of the collateral within the same statement contains seriously misleading errors?

Conclusion

This case solidifies the power of a super-generic "all assets" clause in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliq

Legal Rule

Under UCC § 9-504, a financing statement sufficiently indicates the collateral if Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate vel

Legal Analysis

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court, focusing on the dual structure Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Ex

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Summary unavailable

No flash summary is available for this opinion.