  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
In In re Tolona Pizza Products Corp., 3 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 1993), the Seventh Circuit stated that:
"[O]rdinary business terms" refers to the range of terms that encompasses the practice in which firms similar in some general way to the creditor in question engage, and that only dealings so idiosyncratic as to fall outside that broad range should be deemed extraordinary and therefore outside the scope of subsection [pre-BAPCPA § 547(c)(2)(C)].
Id. at 1033, quoted in In re Midway Airlines, 69 F.3d at 797; Fiber Lite Corp. v. Molded Acoustical Prods., Inc. (In re Molded Accoustical Prods., Inc.), 18 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 1994); In re P.A. Bergner & Co. Holding Co., 187 B.R. 964; In re Lan Yik Foods Corp., 185 B.R. 103; In re Superior Toy & Mfg. Co., 183 B.R. 826; In re Valley Steel Corp., 182 B.R. 728; In re Midway Airlines Inc., 180 B.R. 1009; In re NMI Sys., Inc., 179 B.R. 357; In re El Paso Refinery, L.P., 178 B.R. 426; In re Cocolat, Inc., 176 B.R. 540; see also In re Dooley Plastics Co., 185 B.R. 389 (defendant must establish that terms are not unusual when compared with prevailing standards in the creditor's industry).
This test does not require the creditor to establish the existence of some single, uniform set of business terms, or evidence procured directly from competitors or from expert witnesses. While that type of evidence may be used, the creditor may attempt to establish evidence of industry standard through the testimony of persons with extensive experience in the industry. In re Midway Airlines, Inc., 69 F.3d 792; In re Lan Yik Foods Corp., 185 B.R. 103. In Midway, the creditor's attempt to establish ordinary business terms based on evidence of its own dealings with the debtor and other customers was not sufficient because it did not establish what is the norm in the industry. But in Lan Yik, the creditor successfully established [pre-BAPCPA] (c)(2)(C) when defendant's officer testified that its tolerance of late payments was an industry standard. The court noted that self-serving testimony may suffice to prove what ordinary
