Abstract
Using the "ordinary course" defense of § 547(c)(2) to defend preference cases is difficult largely because the Bankruptcy Code does not define what is meant by "ordinary course of business," and because determining what is meant by "ordinary course" is subjective. A recent decision from the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, provides a thoughtful and thorough analysis of principles governing the ordinary course defense in the context of a preference case that was tried to determine whether the creditor could protect certain transfers through the use of the ordinary course defense. It merits attention for both plaintiffs and defendants involved in preference litigation. While the new value defense is mechanical and the contemporaneous exchange is easily asserted if the payment is cash-on-delivery, the assertion of ordinary course is subjective, and it is generally difficult to convince a plaintiff of its validity in an individual case.