the Debtors and Trade Source executed a continued services agreement, by which Trade Source agreed to continue providing services to the Debtors in exchange for payment of its pre-petition claim within nine months. (See Declaration of Keith Jahnke, Adv. D.I. 27-1, at ¶¶ 11-12; Adv. D.I. 27,' Ex. B.) Thus, as was the ease in both Kiwi and Seidle, had the alleged preferential payment not been made pre-petition, Trade Source would have received that payment post-petition, as part of the continued services agreement it had with the Debtors. The Debtors argue that creditors cannot rely on a critical vendor order to defend against a preference claim in the.District of Delaware. See Zenith Indus. Corp. v. Longwood Elastomers, Inc. (In re Zenith Indus. Corp.), 319 B.R. 810, 814 (D. Del. 2005) (<HOLDING>); HLI Creditor Trust v. Export Corp. (In re
holding that it was pure speculation that if the preference payment had not been made the vendor would have been included as a critical vendor and the court would have approved it holding when it is not clear that the sentencing judge would have imposed the same sentence if a lower sentencing range would have been available remand is required holding that only materials which were included in the pretrial record and that would have been admissible evidence may be considered holding that speculation as to how the evidence might have been beneficial was not enough holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible