See United States v. Watson, No. 06-CR-290, 2010 WL 2573478, at *3 (W.D. Mich. June 22, 2010) (“Huntington's rights in secured transactions are governed by Article 9, which does not provide protection either for ‘good faith purchasers for value' or for purchasers ‘for value and without notice.'”). Upon appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, reasoning that, while “Article 9 of the UCC does not use express BFP terminology
The term “bona fide purchaser for value” is not defined in Section 853(n)(6)(B). “Rather, it is a ‘legal term of art’ which was in common use long before 21 U.S.C. § 853 was enacted in 1984.” United States v. Mendez, No. 07–CR–107, 2008 WL 3874318, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2008) (citing United States v. Campos, 859 F.2d 1233, 1238 (6th Cir.1988)). It was “derived ... essentially from hornbook commercial law” and reflects the “common-law rule ... that an ‘innocent purchaser for valuable consideration must be protected.’ ” United States v. Lavin, 942 F.2d 177, 185–86 (3rd Cir.1991) (citations omitted); accord, e.g., United States v. Watson, No. 1:06–CR–290, 2010 WL 2573478, at *2 (W.D.Mich. June 22, 2010); United States v. Caro, No. 08–20044CR, 2010 WL 680939, at *5 (S.D.Fla. Feb. 23, 2010). Under Minnesota law, a “bona fide purchaser” is “one who gives consideration in good faith without actual, implied, or constructive notice of inconsistent outstanding rights of others”—in other words, “a subsequent purchaser in good faith and for [ ] valuable consideration.”
Moreover, it is unclear whether the Bank could establish that it was a "bona fide purchaser for value" in any event. See United States v. Watson, No. 1:06-CR-290, 2010 WL 2573478, at *4 (W.D. Mich. June 22, 2010) (holding that traditional "bona fide purchaser for value" protection extends only to holders of tangible assets). Accordingly, the court finds that the Bank cannot meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that it was bona fide purchaser for value of its right, title, or interest in the funds and was at the time of purchase reasonably without cause to believe that the funds were subject to forfeiture as required to prevail under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(B).