  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
ordinary business terms.'" Gulf City Seafoods, 296 F.3d at 368-69. In analyzing industry standards, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals notes that the analysis should be left to a "case by case determination . . . [by] the bankruptcy judge." Id. at 369. The Court stated "[w]e can only say that the judge must satisfy himself or herself that there exists some basis in the practices of the industry to authenticate the credit arrangement at issue." Id.
Although most professionals assume that industry standard litigation is driven by expert testimony, many courts have looked favorably upon testimony provided solely by the defendant's corporate representative. Tolona Pizza, 3 F.3d at 1031-33; Garb v. Atlandia Imports, Inc. (In re Narragansett Clothing Co.), 146 B.R. 609 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1992) (testimony of defendant's president that late payments were customary in industry sufficient to meet the requirements of section 547(c)(2)(C). In fact, most courts have found that expert testimony is not a prerequisite to prevailing on industry standards. In re Midway Airlines, 69 F.3d at 797; Seaver v. Allstate & Leasing Corp. (In re Sibilrud), 308 B.R. 388 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2004); In re Bridge Information Systems, Inc., 297 B.R. at 765; In re Shalom Hospitality, 293 B.R. at 215. In Tolona Pizza, the court concluded that the testimony of the defendant's executive vice president, based on his personal knowledge regarding the practices of his competitors, was sufficient to meet its burden under § 547(c)(2)(C). Tolona Pizza, 3 F.3d at 1031-33. Likewise, in St. Johnsbury Trucking, the Eighth Circuit found that unrefuted testimony by two of the defendant's officials was sufficient to satisfy § 547(c)(2)(C). Lovett v. St. Johnsbury Trucking, 931 F.2d 494, 499 (8th Cir. 1991). The Eighth Circuit subsequently held that the testimony of a defendant's president and CEO about the regular practice in the savings and loan industry was sufficient to carry its burden. In re U.S.A. Inns of Eureka Springs, Ark., 9 F.3d at 685.
In Gulf City Seafoods, the Fifth Circuit noted that the defendant "may satisfy its burden [under § 547(c)(2)(C)] through testimony by its own company representatives about the practices of other
