payments made in a contemporaneous exchange for new value. IV. We vacate the judgment for AAS. Because AAS’s ordinary-course-of-business defense remains to be considered, we remand for consideration of this alternative exception to the avoidability of preferential transfers. VACATED and REMANDED. *** Whether or not the new credit extended by AAS to Arrow constituted "new value” under the circumstances of this case is a mixed question of law and fact. See Reigle v. S.S. Mahajan (In re Kumar Bavishi & Assoc.), 906 F.2d 942, 943 (3rd Cir.1990). Findings of underlying facts are reviewed for clear error, but the legal standards applied to those facts are subject to plenary review. Id.; see also Nordberg v. Arab Banking Corp. (In re Chase and Sanborn Corp.), 904 F.2d 588, 595 (11th Cir.1990)
holding bankruptcy courts determination that payment on account was made for new value erroneous as matter of law recognizing that a state courts determination is not an unreasonable application of law merely because it is erroneous holding that the determination of whether a counterclaim is compulsory is made as a matter of law holding that under 11 usc  547c4 a later payment in exchange for new value only deprives the defendant of the new value defense if the later payment is an otherwise unavoidable transfer holding bankruptcy courts finding of proximate causation not to be clearly erroneous