With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". payments made in a contemporaneous exchange for new value. IV. We vacate the judgment for AAS. Because AAS’s ordinary-course-of-business defense remains to be considered, we remand for consideration of this alternative exception to the avoidability of preferential transfers. VACATED and REMANDED. *** Whether or not the new credit extended by AAS to Arrow constituted "new value” under the circumstances of this case is a mixed question of law and fact. See Reigle v. S.S. Mahajan (In re Kumar Bavishi & Assoc.), 906 F.2d 942, 943 (3rd Cir.1990). Findings of underlying facts are reviewed for clear error, but the legal standards applied to those facts are subject to plenary review. Id.; see also Nordberg v. Arab Banking Corp. (In re Chase and Sanborn Corp.), 904 F.2d 588, 595 (11th Cir.1990)

A: holding bankruptcy courts determination that payment on account was made for new value erroneous as matter of law
B: holding that under 11 usc  547c4 a later payment in exchange for new value only deprives the defendant of the new value defense if the later payment is an otherwise unavoidable transfer
C: holding that the determination of whether a counterclaim is compulsory is made as a matter of law
D: recognizing that a state courts determination is not an unreasonable application of law merely because it is erroneous
A.