In re Terminal Moving & Storage Co., 631 F.2d 547, 551 (8th Cir.1980) (era banc) (“The fact that the benefit of this agreement accrued to ... the sole stockholder of [the corporation] and not the corporation does not detract from the fact that the secured party gave value for the security interest. Since consideration sufficient to support a simple contract was present, value was given and the security interest attached.”); Pittsburgh Tube Co. v. Tri-Bend, Inc., 185 Mich.App. 581, 463 N.W.2d 161, 164 (Mich.App.1990) (“By its plain language, UCC 9-203(1) does not require that debtor receive anything in order for the security agreement to attach; it only requires that the secured party give value.”); Owen v. Vibrosearch Exploration, Inc., 694 S.W.2d 421, 424 (Tex.Ct.App.-Hous.1985) (<HOLDING>). Judge Van Antwerpen’s opinion in Adelvision,
holding that a preexisting or antecedent debt may constitute sufficient consideration to support a mortgage recognizing satisfaction of a valid debt as adequate consideration in a transfer of real property holding that satisfaction of preexisting debt of corporate affiliate was sufficient to support jury finding of fair consideration for the transfer of valid security interest holding that plaintiffs forbearance from suit against subsidiary was sufficient consideration to support defendants guaranty of defendants subsidiarys preexisting debt holding that under virginia law a banks security interest which secured a loan made to refinance preexisting debt was a nonpossessory nonpurchasemoney security interest