11 U.S.C. § 547(b). See also Radnor Holdings Corp. v. PPT Consulting, LLC (In re Radnor Holdings Corp.), Case No. 06-10894, 2009 Bankr.LEXIS 1815, at *7-8 (Bankr.D.Del. July 9, 2009). 26 . Id. at § 547(g). See also Radnor, 2009 Bankr.LEXIS 1815, at *8. 27 . Waslow, 308 B.R. at 701. 28 . 11 U.S.C. § 547(g); United States Trustee v. First Jersey Sec., Inc. (In re First Jersey Sec., Inc.), 180 F.3d 504, 512 (3d Cir.1999). 29 . See, e.g., J.F. Feeser, Inc. v. Serv-A-Portion, Inc., 909 F.2d 1524, 1531 (3d Cir.1990) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548); Radnor, 2009 Bankr.LEXIS 1815, at *10-11; Hassett v. Altai, Inc. (In re CIS Corp.), 214 B.R. 108, 119 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1997). 30 . Section 547(c)(2) states as follows: (c) The truste Steel Corp.), 182 B.R. 728 (Bankr.W.D.Va.1995) (<HOLDING>); Branch v. Ropes & Gray (In re Bank of New
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 approximately 54 days prepreference average days to payment and approximately 67 days preference average days to payment did not make the payments out of the ordinary course of business 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