In farm Chapter 11 case, where Debtors obtained crop input financing by agreeing to sell future farm receipts to finance company, contrary to interest of Bank with prior perfected security interest in crops and proceeds, and where the Bank and the finance company claimed a competing interest in certain crop proceeds, Court determined on the facts at trial that Bank had not “authorized the disposition free of” its security interest under U.C.C. 9-315(a)(1), so that the Bank retained its lien on Debtors’ crops and proceeds notwithstanding alleged sale to finance company. Court also determined that the evidence did not support finance company’s alternative theory of Equitable Subordination under Bankruptcy Code section 510(c), finding that Bank did not exert excessive control over Debtors’ business, and thus was not an insider, and took no inequitable action with an intent to harm the finance company.