held that a noncomplying secured party may not recover a deficiency (the ‘absolute bar’ rule). A few courts held that the debtor can offset against a claim to a deficiency all damages recoverable under former Section 9-507 resulting from the secured party’s noncompliance (the ‘offset’ rule). A plurality of courts considering the issue held that the noncomplying secured party is barred from recovering a deficiency unless it overcomes a rebuttable presumption that compliance with former Part 5 would have yielded an amount sufficient to satisfy the secured debt. Official Comment 4 to Revised UCC § 9-626. A review of the New Jersey case law indicates that its courts were in the latter category. Security Savings Bank, SLA v. Tranchitella, 249 N.J.Super. 234, 244, 592 A.2d 284, 290 (1991) (<HOLDING>). In Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. v.
recognizing presumption and finding that it was overcome recognizing presumption holding that guidelines create a rebuttable presumption recognizing a rebuttable presumption of reliance in rule 10b5 recognizing divergent approaches and finding that applying a rebuttable presumption gives more appropriate recognition to the interests of both parties because it permits consideration of the facts in each unique matter