89 B.R. 529, 530 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1988); and In re Pashi, 88 B.R. 456, 457 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1988). 17 . In re Cantin, 114 B.R. 339, 341 (Bankr.D.Mass.1990); and In re Dempster, 59 B.R. 453, 455 (Bankr.M.D.Ga.1984). 18 . Id. See also Mesnick, 950 F.2d at 822. 19 . Mack v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 871 F.2d 179, 181 (1st Cir.1989). 20 . Id. See also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505. 21 . Id. See also In re CVEO Corp., 327 B.R. at 213. 22 . See, e.g., Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1363 (3d Cir.1992). 23 . PTC v. Robert Wholey & Co. (In re Fleming Cos.), 2006 Bankr.LEXIS 896 at *3 (Bankr.D.Del.2006) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 106 S.Ct. at 1356). 24 . Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548. 25 nd Corp.), 161 B.R. 557 (Bankr.D.Mass.1993) (<HOLDING>). 48 . See, e.g., Radnor Holdings Corp. v. PPT
holding that the average number of days to payment nearly doubled between the historical period and the preference period which based on the facts of that particular case made the payments outside the ordinary course of dealings between the plaintiff and defendant holding that 120 days notice was satisfied by 30 days work plus 90 days pay holding that a five day discrepancy between average days outstanding during the prepreference period versus during the preference period did not make the payments out of the ordinary course of business holding that payments made 25 days after the average were within the ordinary course of dealings but payments made 50 days after the average were not holding that a difference between 384 days prepreference average number of days to payment and 547 days preference average number of days to payment did not make the payments out of the ordinary course of business