Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
with the practice both parties followed previously.” Id. at 499. Moreover, in regard to the general practice in the industry regarding the time of payment, the transferee “introduced testimony ... that it is ‘common’ in the tracking industry — even when 30-day payment terms are required by contract — for payments ‘to be made over a 30-day period’ (i.e., after 30 days from the date of invoice) and that it is ‘[v]ery common’ in the industry ‘that people pass the 30 day period.’ ” Id Thus, the Eighth Circuit apparently did not require proof that particular industry members consistently paid late. See also Tolona Pizza, 3 F.3d at 1033 (finding that the evidence showed that “payment within 30 days is within the outer limits of normal industry practices”); U.S.A Inns, 9 F.3d at 684-85 . A similar approach was posited in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the transferee provided sufficient evidence that its transfer comported with industry standards the transferee proved that probably eight to ten percent of its accounts were on a similar pay schedule as the debtors and that working with delinquent customers as long as some type of payment was forthcoming was common industry practice
B. holding that the commission reasonably interpreted the statute as requiring it to assess the condition of the industry as a whole
C. holding a party to be an initial transferee because she was given legal title to the funds
D. holding that a trustee is not required to avoid the initial transfer from the initial transferee before seeking to avoid it and recover from subsequent transferees and noting that this conclusion is consistent with case law that has disallowed automatic recovery from a subsequent transferee following the avoidance of an initial transfer through a stipulated judgment or default when the transferee had not been a party to the underlying avoidance proceeding
E. holding that a trustee may settle with an initial transferee and still pursue recovery against a subsequent transferee but notwithstanding the trustee will still be required to prove that the transfers  were fraudulent and improper in connection with its suit against the subsequent transferee because the trustees settlement with the initial transferee did not involve any determination on the merits as to the initial transfers and in this way the subsequent transferee will be afforded its due process rights to contest the avoidability of these initial transfers
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.