See Octagon Gas Systems, Inc. v. Rimmer (In re Meridian Reserve, Inc.), 995 F.2d 948, 953-57 (10th Cir.1993). We reject TIFCO and Jardine’s request to apply Texas law, and apply Oklahoma law. While TIFCO and Jardine reside in Texas and entered their agreement with Barton in Texas, Barton and ABT reside and do business in Oklahoma, Barton and ABT entered their security agreement in Oklahoma, and the bankruptcy proceedings occurred in Oklahoma. See generally Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law § 251 (1971) (stating rule that validity and effect of security interests not directly governed by U.C.C. are determined by law of the state with most significant relationship to the parties, property, and security interests). 3 . See, e.g., In re Smith, 167 B.R. 895, 898 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1994) (<HOLDING>); A-1 Credit Corp v. Big Squaw Mountain Corp.
holding that the trustee could not avoid a security interest under section 549 when that security interest was authorized by the bankruptcy court holding that although a financing statement may be used to assist in the interpretation of the security agreement the financing statement does not create a security interest and cannot extend a security interest beyond what has been unambiguously described in a security agreement holding security interest in insurance premiums perfected by creation of security interest holding security interest enforceable at time of creation when state statutory law silent on perfection holding courts must look to the law of the state in which the security interest was created to determine if creditor retains a purchase money security interest despite refinancing