With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that speculation as to how the evidence might have been beneficial was not enough
B: holding that only materials which were included in the pretrial record and that would have been admissible evidence may be considered
C: 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
D: 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
C.