With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in the amount of oil and gas sold and any price differences were accounted for at the end of the month via the netting agreements, and any debt owed was paid or satisfied in full. The record demonstrates that these transactions were bona-fide transactions where oil and gas was bought and sold and therefore, the Court finds that the transactions created “new value.” The Producers’ third argument is that the cross-product netting agreements were made as security for a money debt. Because there was no antecedent debt at the time of the sale, this argument must also fail. It is well-established that BIOC is determined at the time of the sale and any subsequent action cannot affect a buyer’s status as a BIOC. See, e.g., In re Pearson Indus., Inc., 142 B.R. 831, 843 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.1992) (<HOLDING>). The law is equally clear that the “money

A: holding that subsequent acts cannot be applied retroactively to the bioc analysis
B: holding the batson rule was not to be applied retroactively to a state conviction on federal habeas review
C: recognizing the objection requirement for new state constitutional rules applied retroactively
D: holding that kotecki limit applied retroactively
A.