  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
credit . . . ." 11 U.S.C. § 547(a)(2). A "[r]elease of or credit on a debtor's preexisting obligation does not qualify as 'new value' under § 547(a)(2)." Jotan, 264 B.R. at 750 (citing Nordberg v. Arab Banking Corp. (In re Chase & Sanborn, Corp.), 904 F.2d 588, 596 (11th Cir. 1990)); see also Hays v. DMAC Invs., Inc. (In re RDM Sports Group, Inc.), 250 B.R. 805, 817 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2000). Further, forbearance "'from exercising pre-existing rights does not constitute new value within § 547(c)(1). . . .'" Jotan, 264 B.R. at 751 (quoting Am. Bank of Martin County v. Leasing Serv. Corp. (In re Air Conditioning, Inc. of Stuart), 845 F.2d 293, 298 (11th Cir. 1988)); see also RDM Sports, 250 B.R. at 817.
The Defendant must supply proof of "the specific dollar value of any 'new value' provided in exchange for the transfer." Jotan, 264 B.R. at 751 (citing Jet Fla., Inc. v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (In re Jet Fla. Sys., Inc.), 861 F.2d 1555, 1559 (11th Cir. 1988)). The defendant must show "that a preferential transfer conferred actual economic benefit upon a transferee/debtor, rather than merely showing that a transferee/debtor and creditor intended some hypothetical or ephemeral value to be conferred. Id. (citing Jet Florida, 861 F.2d at 1559) (emphasis omitted).
The term new value is defined in section 547(a)(2). Whether new value exists is a mixed question of law and fact. Miller v. Bodek & Rhodes, Inc. (In re Adelphia Automatic Sprinkler Co.), 184 B.R. 224 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
Payments made more than three months after settlement agreement was signed were not "contemporaneous exchanges for new value." Carolyn's Kitchen, Inc. v. Cybergenics Corp. (In re Carolyn's Kitchen, Inc.), 209 B.R. 204, 207 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1997). New value is not an esoteric or intangible benefit, but instead must actually enhance the worth of the debtor's estate so as to offset the reduction in the estate that the
