Under the BAPCPA, the "Ordinary Course of Business" defense to preferential transfers was amended. A preferential transfer is a transfer of estate assets to a preferred creditor during the time period shortly before the debtor files for bankruptcy. Specifically, Section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code defines it as a transfer: (1) to or for the benefit of a creditor; (2) for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made; (3) made while the debtor was insolvent; (4) made: (A) on or within 90 days before the date of the filing of the petition; or (B) between ninety days and one year before the date of the filing of the petition, if such creditor at the time of such transfer was an insider; and (5) that enables such creditor to receive more than such creditor would receive if: (A) the case were a case under chapter 7 of this title; (B) the transfer had not been made; and (C) such creditor received payment of such debt to the extent provided by the provisions of this title. This law maintains the Codes's intent of equal treatment for similarly situated creditors and allows the trustee to recover any assets from a creditor which received more than its fair share of estate assets. It is important to remember that the underlying transfers in a preferential transfer avoidance case are, in most cases, valid transfers paid to creditors for valid debts owed. In addition to providing a system for trustees to recover preferential transfers, the Code also provides defenses which a creditor can raise in order to avoid having to turnover the otherwise avoidable transfers. One such defense is the "Ordinary Course of Business" defense. On a basic level, this allows a creditor to keep an otherwise preferential transfer if such a transfer was made according to customary business terms. BAPCPA amended the statutory defense of "Ordinary Course of Business." Prior to BAPCPA, Section 547(c)(2) stated that a trustee was not able to avoid a preferential transfer to the extent that such transfer was: (A) in payment of a debt incurred by the debtor in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the transferee; (B) made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the transferee; and (C) made according to ordinary business terms. BAPCPA altered the ordinary course of business defense. Under BAPCPA, the 'and' between subsections (B) and (C) was changed to an 'or'. Prior to BAPCPA, a creditor had to demonstrate that not only was the transfer made in the ordinary business of the debtor and creditor but the creditor also had to show that the transfer was made according to ordinary business terms. This subtle change was recently discussed in Hutson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 2006 WL 2135557 (Bankr. E.D.N.C.) issued July 31, 2006. This was a post BAPCPA where the Court held that despite the charge to the statute, the preference defendant still has to put on some proof as to more than one element of the defenses of Seciton 547 (c)(2). In this matter, the trustee sought to avoid and recover preferential transfers in the amount of $3,263,516.15. Branch Banking & Trust Co. ("BB&T") raised the ordinary course of business defense. The court said that prior to BAPCPA, the two defenses of ordinary course in the dealings between debtor and creditor and the defense of ordinary business terms in the industry were dual components of a single defense. The court says that the issue of whether the words "ordinary business terms" acquired new meaning in their new post BAPCPA context. The court began its reasoning by stating that after the amendments, section 547(c)(2) essentially created a new statute and that the plain meaning must be analyzed. The court stated that the phrase "ordinary business terms" is so inclusive that makes the plain meaning analysis difficult. The court also says that the legislative history is not helpful either. The court said that although the intent was that "ordinary business terms" should only be used when there is no course of dealings between the parties, but the statute as amended allows the objective defense to be used even where a course of dealing has been established and further allows it even where transfers at issue fall outside the established course of dealings. The court delves into the pre-BAPCPA history of the ordinary course of business defense and says that "ordinary business terms" had previously been under the controlling influence of the ordinary course of business subsection. After BAPCPA, the phrase is now the equal of the "ordinary course of business" defense. In the Huston matter, BB&T relied primarily on its own established relationship with the debtor. The court ruled in favor of the trustee and said "although the creditor's burden has been lightened by BAPCPA, it still has some weight, and it has not been lightened to the extent that BB&T can prevail in this proceeding." Despite the Court's reliance on the "plain meaning" of the statute, the Court still required some evidence as to more than one element of section 547 (c)(2). In light of this opinion, any use of the ordinary course of business defense cannot ignore the subsection related to "ordinary business terms." Ray