Systems, Inc. ("MERS”), but it simplifies the discussion to treat GAMC as the affected party- 2 . After the events in this case, the time period was extended by Congress to 30 days, but the amendment has no effect on this case. Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Pro tection Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-8, § 403 (codified at 11 U.S.C. § 547(e)(2)). 3 . E.g., In re Superior Stamp & Coin Co., 223 F.3d at 1010; Coral Petroleum, Inc. v. Banque Paribas-London, 797 F.2d 1351, 1356 (5th Cir.1986). Other circuits have recognized the doctrine. E.g., In re Kumar Bavishi & Assocs., 906 F.2d 942, 944 (3d Cir.1990); In re Montgomery, 983 F.2d 1389, 1395 (6th Cir. 1993); In re Kelton Motors, Inc., 97 F.3d 22, 27 (2d Cir.1996); In re Bohlen Enters. Ltd., 859 F.2d 561, 566 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The decisions require that the new creditor
recognizing but expressing doubts recognizing rule recognizing authority but declining to issue writ recognizing but not resolving this question recognizing the split but not adopting a rule