ADVANCED ISSUES IN AVOIDANCE

Finishing Co. (In re H. King & Assocs.), No. 99B17717, 2001 WL 987823 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2001).

*

"At a minimum, Defendant's expert by affidavit should provide specific facts to support his expertise, a supported definition of the applicable industry, and specific descriptions of the applicable ordinary business terms of the industry and of Defendant and Debtors. These specifics to support the affiant's opinions are particularly important for credibility because it is to be expected that the. testimony of an officer of Defendant would be favorable to Defendant's position . . . . While this court will accept the affidavit of an expert affiliated with a defendant, that affidavit must be supported on its face and not contain merely conclusory, self-serving statements." Devan v. Zamoiski SE, Inc. (In re Merry-Go-Round Enters., Inc.), 272 B.R. 140, 148 (Bankr. D. Md. 2000).

*

Defendant's Vice President who testified that he "guessed" about customers ordinary payment terms in the industry insufficient to meet burden In re JJSA Liquidation Trust, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16904.

e. Conclusion.

Although different courts have accepted varying degrees of proof by a creditor to prove ordinary business terms under § 547(c)(2)(C), evidence of competitors' practices in the industry is crucial. While some courts accept the self-serving testimony of corporate representatives, the subsection requires an objective analysis of industry standards. Much of trial preparation, obviously, is dictated by the extent of liability involved. When the face value of the complaint counsels against the expense of expert testimony, well-documented, credible testimony of more than one representative of the company may be sufficient. However, when the defendant is exposed to increased liability, the conservative approach is to secure the services of at least one expert, with supplemental testimony provided by the corporate representative.