consolidating the estates, the Defendant alleges that the total amount of its new value defense should be calculated based upon the new value it delivered to any of the Debtors during the preference period. To permit the Trustee to attack the transfers made by each Debtor individually undermines the res ju-dicata effect of the Confirmation Order according to the Defendant. The Defendant acknowledges that there are two lines of cases regarding the retroactive effect of substantive consolidation orders. The Defendant urges the Court to reject Drabkin v. Midland-Ross Corp. (In re Auto-Train Corp., Inc.), 810 F.2d 270, 277-278 (D.C.Cir.1987) and its progeny, and specifically Schwinn Plan Committee v. AFS Cycle & Co. (In re Schwinn Bicycle Co.), 205 B.R. 557 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1997) (<HOLDING>) in favor of the line of cases represented by
holding that new value exception still exists holding new value exception exists holding that a decedents tax settlement with the irs did not establish the value of his estates claim against the irs 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 that the substantive consolidation of the estates did not permit a consolidated new value defense