From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
LMS Holding Company v. Core-Mark Mid-Continent, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
50 F.3d 1520 (1995)
MAKO, Inc., operated convenience stores. In 1988 MAKO granted Core-Mark Mid-Continent, Inc. (Coremark) (defendant) a security interest in its inventory and after-acquired inventory. Coremark filed a financing statement naming MAKO as the debtor to perfect its security interest. MAKO subsequently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Under MAKO’s reorganization plan, Retail Marketing Company (RMC) (plaintiff) acquired certain MAKO assets—including inventory in which MAKO had given Coremark a security interest—and took over MAKO’s stores. RMC assumed MAKO’s debts and granted Coremark a new security interest in RMC’s inventory and after-acquired inventory. Coremark did not file a new financing statement listing RMC as the debtor. In 1991 RMC filed for bankruptcy. Coremark filed a proof of claim in RMC’s bankruptcy for its after-acquired inventory. RMC filed an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court, seeking to avoid Coremark’s claim. RMC reasoned that Coremark did not have a perfected security interest in RMC’s after-acquired inventory, because Coremark had not filed a new financing statement naming RMC as the debtor. The bankruptcy court, relying on an Oklahoma statute providing that a financing statement remained effective with regard to collateral transferred by a debtor, held that Coremark’s financing statement related to MAKO’s inventory remained effective with respect to RMC’s after-acquired inventory. Therefore, Coremark had a perfected security interest in RMC’s after-acquired inventory. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court, holding that Coremark’s perfected financing statement only applied to the inventory that MAKO transferred to RMC. Because Coremark did not have a perfected security interest in RMC’s after-acquired inventory, the district court granted summary judgment for RMC. Coremark appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Baldock, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.