Derrick Debtor is the owner and sole shareholder of Hot 'n Spicy, Inc., a Missouri corporation, which borrowed $100,000 from Bank1 to purchase equipment in order to start a new restaurant "Hot n’ Spicy." Prior to granting the loan, Bank1 filed an initial financing statement with the Missouri Secretary of State, identifying the debtor as "Hot & Spicy" (which is how the debtor's name appears in the phone book) and covering "all of Debtor's equipment and inventory." Derrick then signed a security agreement granting Bank1 a security interest in all of the debtor's presently-owned and after-acquired equipment and inventory.

Subsequently, in order to advertise the start of the new business, Derrick wanted to borrow $25,000 from Bank2. Bank2 sought to secure the loan by taking a security interest in Hot 'n Spicy’s equipment and inventory. Bank2 searched the UCC records for the State of Missouri under the name "Hot 'n Spicy" and found no other financing statements on record under that name. The state's search logic returns only exact matches. The Secretary of State’s office noted on its search report that Bank 2 might wish to conduct a further UCC searches using “and” and "&", but Bank2 chose not to do so. Bank2 then obtained a valid security interest in the debtor's present and after-acquired equipment and inventory, and filed an initial financing statement covering the "debtor's present and after-acquired equipment and inventory."

Hot n’ Spicy does not do so well in the first year of business, and they default on both loans. Bank2 claims that it should have priority over Bank1 as to all of Hot n’ Spicy’s equipment and inventory. Is Bank 2 correct?

A. Yes, because Bank1's financing statement did not expressly cover after-acquired equipment and was thus not sufficient to perfect Bank1's security interest in after-acquired equipment.

B. Yes, because Bank1's financing statement did not correctly identify the debtor's name and this error was seriously misleading.

C. No, because Bank2 failed to conduct the additional searches that were recommended by the Secretary of State.

D. No, because Bank2 should have inquired of Derrick whether he had granted a security interest to any other lenders.