(plaintiff claims it was a secured party and substantially complied with § 1631(e) of Food Security Act (FSA) (a.k.a. “The Farm Products Rule”) by providing notice of its security interest in farm products; the notice sent to the defendant left blank the space for a description of the property or county where the farm products that were claimed as collateral may be located; question for the Court was whether an Illinois state case holding that substantial compliance with notice under the UCC was sufficient or whether Illinois should follow the holding of Farm Credit Midsouth, PCA v. Farm Fresh Catfish Co., 371 F3d 450 (8th Cir. 2004), which held that FSA requires strict compliance; the court held that the FSA requires strict compliance with notice given under direct notice exception to the Act; the plaintiff failed to clearly state the location of the farm products in its direct notice to the defendant, so plaintiff did not hold a secured interest in the property; dissent stated that court’s opinion adopting a strict compliance standard underFarm Credit Midsouth leads to an absurd and illogical interpretation of Farm Products Rule because a party can make an error in identifying the secured party, but all parties will be deemed to have constructive notice of the claim, while a creditor can be unsecure where direct notice is given but the notice contains any minor error (even if the party has enough sufficient knowledge of the claim); on further review, state Supreme Court affirmed on basis that federal jurisprudence applied in addressing the issue of whether strict compliance was required to provide direct notice of a security interest in crops under the Food Security Act of 1985; court agreed with appellate court that Farm Credit Midsouth, PCA v. Farm Fresh Catfish Co., 371 F.3d 450 (8th Cir. 2004) was directly on-point with the issue presented and aligned with the Court’s analysis of the statute).