[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 4, 2008

No. 07-11179 THOMAS K. KAHN

________________________ CLERK

D. C. Docket No. 05-02689-CV-TCB

BKCY No. 04-06420-BKC-JE In Re: TRACY JOSEPH HEDRICK,

THERESA ANN HEDRICK,

Debtors. __________________________________________________ NEIL C. GORDON, Trustee for the Estate of Tracy Joseph Hedrick and Theresa Ann Hedrick,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus NOVASTAR MORTGAGE, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

No. 07-11187

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-03123-CV-TCB-1

BKCY No. 03-68468-BKC-MGD In Re: SOM R. SHARMA,

Debtor. __________________________________________________ NEIL C. GORDON, Trustee for the Estate of Santosh K. Sharma,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(June 4, 2008)

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING Before CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and COHN,* District Judge. PER CURIAM:

After considering the appellant’s petition for panel rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, we revise our opinion filed on April 15, 2008, and

*

Honorable James I. Cohn, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

2 published at 524 F.3d 1175, in one respect. The first two sentences of the first full paragraph on page 1189 are deleted, and the following sentence is substituted in their place:

Section 547(e)(2)(A)’s primary purpose is to defeat § 547(b)(2)’s

antecedent debt requirement by causing transfers that are perfected

within ten days to be “made” at the time of the transfer. See Dorholt

v. Linquist (In re Dorholt, Inc.), 239 B.R. 521, 523 (B.A.P. 8th Cir.

1999), aff’d, 224 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2000); 5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶

547.05[5][a], at 547–97 (15th ed. rev. 2006).

With regard to the other issues raised, the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. This order does not affect appellant’s petition insofar as it is a suggestion for rehearing en banc.

3