new value. 12 . Hanover asserts that the bankruptcy court also ruled in its favor on separate equitable grounds. Because we affirm the bankruptcy court’s application of the new value defense, we address Hanover’s equitable defense only to note that neither this court nor any other has recognized that such an equitable defense to a preference action exists. See Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers, 485 U.S. 197, 206, 108 S.Ct. 963, 99 L.Ed.2d 169 (1988) ("[W]hatever equitable powers remain in the bankruptcy courts must and can only be exercised within the confines of the Bankruptcy Code.”) Even the single case that Hanover cites to support its equitable grounds defense provides it no support. See Kmart Corp. v. Uniden Am. Corp. (In re Kmart Corp.), 318 B.R. 409, 415 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2004) (<HOLDING>). TRAXLER, Chief Judge, dissenting: Because I
recognizing the existence of antagonistic defenses does not require severance unless defenses are actually irreconcilable recognizing that cases have generally treated statutory exceptions from remedial statutes as affirmative defenses holding defenses concerning the contract as a whole must be referred to ah arbitrator while defenses to the arbitration provision itself are considered by the court holding that exceptions  such as the act or omission of a third party  to strict liability under section 13385 of californias water code are affirmative defenses holding that apart from threshold defenses such as lack of in personam jurisdiction service of process standing and the like the enumerated 547c preference exceptions are the ex elusive defenses to liability for an otherwise avoidable preferential transfer