With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Bky. No. 02-15015, 2005 WL 984180 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. Apr.19, 2005) (“Here, the parties agree that there are no disputed facts and that resolution of this adversary proceeding turns upon issues of law.”). The Trustee contends that she is entitled to judgment because the undisputed facts preclude this Court from finding that the Defendants can establish that they are entitled to invoke either the ordinary course exemption provided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2) or the new value exemption provided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(4). In response to the Trustee’s allegations, the Defendants have the burden of establishing that, drawing all inferences in their favor, they would be entitled to each affirmative defense. See Schoch v. First Fid. Bancorporation, 912 F.2d 654, 657 (3d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Johnson & Johnson v. American Home Products

A: holding that mere conclusion of affiant without some supporting facts are insufficient to raise fact issue necessary to preclude summary judgment
B: holding that a complaints failure to overcome affirmative defenses does not warrant dismissal
C: holding speculation insufficient to avoid summary judgment
D: holding that the mere pleading of affirmative defenses are insufficient to repel summary judgment
D.