Defendant creditor moved for summary judgment on lien-priority issue, asserting a first-priority lien in debtor’s accounts receivable.  The Court denied summary judgment, rejecting three arguments by Creditor.  First, Court rejected argument that creditor was entitled to equitable subrogation as a matter of law.  Creditor could not be equitably subrogated because it was guilty of inexcusable neglect.  Creditor’s knowledge of an intervening lien and subsequent failure to appropriately structure its transaction to acquire the first-priority position constituted inexcusable neglect.  The Court also rejected the argument that the estate had no interest in the accounts receivable.  The estate had an interest because the accounts receivable were either never sold out of the estate or were sold subject to a lien in which the estate had a potential interest.  Finally, the Court rejected the argument that creditor could use a fraudulent transfer action to avoid another party’s security interest in the accounts receivable.  Fraudulent transfer actions under 11 U.S.C. § 548 can only be brought by the trustee, unless court approval and trustee consent is first obtained.