than a holder in due course. The debtor obtained the loan from his uncle that was used to make sufficient deposits to eliminate the negative balances at both banks. At that point, the banks’ security interests were satisfied and the banks were made whole. [Tjhese banks did not benefit from any funds that they had reason to suspect or know were illegal or tainted. Id. at 887. In Brown, the kite related transfers-the satisfaction of provisional credit upon final settlement of a deposited item — were shielded from preference attack under § 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code “by the secured positions enjoyed by the depositary and collection banks.” Id.; see also Pioneer Liquidating Corp. v. San Diego Trust & Sav. Bank (In re Consol. Pioneer Mortgage Entities), 211 B.R. 704, 711 (S.D.Cal.1997) (<HOLDING>), aff'd in part, rev’d in part 166 F.3d 342,
holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank holding that based on  4210 of the ucc there could be no recovery because the bank had a security interest in the deposited items to the extent that it allowed its customer to draw on provisional credit holding a bank officer who informed a third party that it would be safe to extend 8000 credit to bank customer although customer did not have an open account at the bank could be held liable for the material misrepresentation holding that bank had right to set off funds in a customers account against debt that the bank customer had incurred as a surety or guarantor holding that with respect to owners summaryjudgment claims against subsequent buyers under ucc  24011 owners reservation of title in himself was limited in effect to reservation of security interest and that failure of owner to perfect his security interest made it subordinate under ucc  9  301lc to rights of buyer not in ordinary course of business