two concepts — transfer and obligation — are very closely related, but they are not identical. The parsing of English can be difficult, but even when the word “transfer” is given a most expansive meaning that encompasses every conceivable means of disposing or parting with property or an interest in property, it still fails to capture the meaning of the undefined term “incurrence of an obligation.” Becoming obligated to a counterparty is not the same as parting with property. This conclusion is supported by several cases that have distinguished between “transfers” and “obligations” in other contexts not involving section 546(e), including sections 547 and 548. See Pls.’ Opp’n at 19-35, citing, inter alia, In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd., 333 B.R. 199, 203-204 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2005) (<HOLDING>); Covey v. Comm. Nat’l Bank of Peona, 960 F.2d
holding that  502d applies to prevent payment of any part of administrative expenses due creditor until preferential property transfer is recovered holding that transfer was proper remedy for improper venue even though the issue of transfer was not raised until the motion hearing in circuit court holding that the failure to condition a transfer on death or remarriage of the wife was a factor showing that the transfer was not in the nature of alimony holding that in chapter 7 context the debtors had no power to transfer the property without the approval of the trustee holding that a guar anty was not a transfer in the context of section 502d