of the sort commonly undertaken by companies in that industry.” Roth Am., 975 F.2d at 953. See also Martino v. First Nat’l Bank (In re Garofalo’s Finer Foods), 164 B.R. 955, 962-63 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1994), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 186 B.R. 414 (N.D.Ill.1995). Vision argues that the Second Agreement was not entered in the ordinary course of its business. It asserts that, at that time, it was a producer of carbon and alloy hot finish, cold drawn, and welded steel tubing for the automotive, utility, energy, and general manufacturing markets. Thus, Vision argues that the construction of the Assel Mill was a transaction outside the ordinary course of its business. See, e.g., Lackawanna Iron & Coal Co. v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 176 U.S. 298, 315-16, 20 S.Ct. 363, 44 L.Ed. 475 (1900) (<HOLDING>). It is not, however, the construction of the
recognizing that judges are necessarily exposed to matters outside the record in the course of ruling on the admission of evidence holding construction of new building was part of a grocers business holding that extensive reconstruction of a railway tantamount to new construction was an extraordinary expenditure deemed to occur outside the course of the railroads business holding that monitoring telephone calls is in the ordinary course of business where the employer has reason to suspect an employee of disclosing confidential information to business competitor holding intentional assault by coworker to be outside the course and scope of employment