See U.C.C. § l-202(b) (“ ‘Knowledge’ means actual knowledge.”). Case law teaches that the Court must evaluate a purchaser’s actual knowledge at the time of the sale, and any knowledge subsequently gained by the purchaser is irrelevant to the analysis. See, e.g., Gary Aircraft Corp. v. General Dynamics Corp. (In re Gary Aircraft Corp.), 681 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir.1982) (stating that knowledge is measured at the time of sale); see also Snap-On Tools Corp. v. Rice, 162 Ariz. 99, 781 P.2d 76, 78 (App.1989) (“The purchaser must have actual knowledge that the security interest exists at the time the collateral is purchased.”). Moreover, a buyer has no duty to inquire into whether a security interest exists. See Clark Oil & Ref. Co. v. Liddicoat, 65 Wis.2d 612, 223 N.W.2d 530, 536 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Finally, and importantly for this case,
holding that a defendant must have notice that the trial court might sentence him to death holding that constructive knowledge satisfies the reason to know standard holding tolling appropriate where no aspect of reports should have alerted plaintiffs to irregularities holding that a motion to intervene filed after final judgment should have been granted holding that whether the judgment creditor had reason to know or might have been alerted to circumstances that should reasonably have impelled him to check beyond the filed record is irrelevant  