With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". money, or money’s worth of services. Without determining the Plaintiffs arguments, we conclude that the Defendant cannot rely on the new value exception because it failed to establish the timing of the transaction. The Defendant never proved when the services represented by the November 24 invoice were performed. Without establishing that, we cannot determine if the services were performed before or after the preference payments the Defendant seeks to offset. New York City Shoes, 880 F.2d at 682. Consequently, we conclude that the Defendant has failed to meet its burden of establishing a new value defense. See, e.g., TWA Inc. Post Confirmation Estate v. City & County of San Francisco Airports Comm’n (In re TWA Inc. Post Confirmation Estate), 305 B.R. 221, 228 (Bankr.D.Del.2004) (<HOLDING>). C. Mere Conduit Defense The Defendant’s final

A: holding that defendant must prove when the services were rendered to establish that the new value exception applies
B: holding new value exception exists
C: holding that an attorneys services were personal services rendered or labor done under the predecessor statute to section 38001
D: holding that because the hospital had no actual or constructive notice that the parties were separated at the time services were rendered the separation exception did not apply
A.