reasoning has emerged. Compare Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bryson Props., XVIII (In re Bryson Properties XVIII), 961 F.2d 496 (4th Cir.) (reviewing split in cases but and holding that “even if some limited new capital exception were viable” under the Code it did not apply on facts of case), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 866, 113 S.Ct. 191, 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992); Kham & Nate’s Shoes No. 2 v. First Bank of Whiting, 908 F.2d 1351 (7th Cir.1990) (questioning vitality of new value exception); In re Drimmel, 135 B.R. 410 (D.Kan.1991) (finding that new value exception no longer exists), aff'd sub nom. Unruh v. Rushville State Bank, 987 F.2d 1506 (10th Cir.1993); Piedmont Assocs. v. Cigna Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 132 B.R. 75 (N.D.Ga.1991) (same) with In re Bonner Mall Partnership, 2 F.3d 899 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>), cert. granted, 510 U.S. 1039, 114 S.Ct. 681,
holding that new value exception still exists holding that such a duty exists holding that defendant must prove when the services were rendered to establish that the new value exception applies holding that no complete innocence exception to the doench doctrine exists recognizing exception