acceptable methods of challenging a secured creditor’s interest, ABT has never disputed that TIFCO had an allowed secured claim. See ABT Reply Br. at 6-7. Rather, the issue is whether the Chapter 11 plan itself altered TIFCO's lien rights, which the plan may do provided TIFCO participated in the proceedings and received adequate notice. See Union Entities, 83 F.3d at 1025; In re Penrod, 50 F.3d 459, 462-64 (7th Cir.1995). 2 . We resolve the security interest issues by reference to state l re Big Squaw Mountain Corp.), 122 B.R. 831, 836-839 (Bankr.D.Me.1990) (applying Maine common law and law of other jurisdictions to determine that filing notice or taking possession of insurance policies not required to perfect security interest); In re Cooper, 104 B.R. 774, 775 (Bankr.S.D.W.Va.1989) (<HOLDING>); Thico Plan, Inc. v. Maplewood Poultry Co. (In
holding that faa does not preempt state law when determining date of perfection holding that the choice of law rules of pennsylvanias revised article 9 directs a trial court to apply the substantive local laws of the perfection state to determine whether  a security interest was perfected thus florida law controlled the perfection of a security interest recognizing kentucky as a state where actual notation of the secured partys lien on the certificate of title is a prerequisite for perfection of a security interest in a motor vehicle holding security interest enforceable at time of creation when state statutory law silent on perfection holding security interest in insurance premiums perfected by creation of security interest