25947345, at *4 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. Jul. 15, 2003). Imposed by the preamble language of § 547(c)(2), the first prong of the test requires that the debt to which payments relate must be “incurred by the debtor in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the transferee ...” 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2) [emphasis added]. This prong does not refer to the parties’ conduct with regard to the Debt- or’s payment history. Rather, it addresses circumstances under which the debt was originated. In other words, it is not sufficient that the Transfers be made in the ordinary course. The loans must also have been incurred by the Debtor and the Defendants in their respective ordinary business dealings. See, e.g., In re Pioneer Technology, Inc., 107 B.R. 698, 702 (9th Cir. BAP 1988) (<HOLDING>); Wilen v. Pamrapo Savings Bank (In re Bayonne
holding that the economic loss rule does not preclude independent tort claims that fall outside the scope of a breach of contract holding that preemption under  1144a does not permit removal if the plaintiffs claim does not fall within the scope of  1132a holding that declaratory judgments fall outside the scope of the court of claims jurisdiction holding that insider transaction did not fall within scope of  547c2 holding that legal duties imposed on railroads by the common law fall within the scope of these broad phrases