and apply the proceeds toward the loan balance. Ind.Code § 26-1-9-504(4) (UCC § 9-504(4)) provides that “when collateral is disposed of by a secured party after default, the disposition transfers to a purchaser for value all of the debtor’s rights therein, and discharges the security interest under which it is made and any security interest or lien subordinate thereto.” (Emphasis added.) RBK argues that the foreclosure sale not only discharged the bank’s security interest in SWP’s assets but also discharged the EEOC’s judgment. This argument fails as a matter of law. By its own terms, Ind.Code § 26-1-9-504(4) (UCC § 9-504(4)) discusses discharge of security interests and liens in collateral. It does not affect the underlying debt. Accord: Ed Peters Jewelry Co., 124 F.3d at 267 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the question of whether RBK owes for
holding that although foreclosure by a senior lienor often wipes out juniorlien interests in the same collateral  it does not discharge the debtors underlying obligation to junior lien creditors holding that despite foreclosure judgment providing that the holder of a junior mortgage had no interest in or lien on or claim to said premises the lack of foreclosure sale meant that the junior mortgage was not extinguished holding that section 363f applies only to in rem interests which have attached to the property by way of either the debtors consent to a security interest or the creditors attachment of the property resulting in a lien holding that a senior lien holders cancellation of a loan to third party trustors and taking of a quitclaim deed from the trustors in lieu of foreclosure violated the automatic stay of the junior lien holder who was a debtor in bankruptcy holding that in a case in which an omitted junior mortgagee foreclosed its mortgage the junior mortgagee had the absolute right to redeem from the senior mortgagee who had purchased the property at a sale following foreclosure of the senior mortgage