upon contract termination. Yet no evidence was offered to establish what, if any, projections were made by QDS and Intech at lease inception as to the Lathes’ fair market value and remaining economic life upon lease termination. In place of this critical information, Lakin, Heller, U.S. Bancorp., and Marcap have offered their estimates of the fair market value and remaining economic life of the Lathes, as well as the cost to return them to the Lessors, made nearly a year after the Lease A addresses only the value of the [equipment] as calculated from the present date, nearly 2lh years after the option price was set. This is not the proper point to determine whether the option price was set low in order to force the debtor to buy the [equipment].”); Kimco Leasing, 656 N.E.2d at 1215 (<HOLDING>). Because it did not present the Court with the
holding that an application is  pending from the time it is first filed  emphasis added holding that debtor failed to meet its burden of proving lease should be recharacterized as a disguised security agreement because the record before the court provides no credible evidence as to the projected fair market of the leased equipment on the dates the debtor will be entitled to exercise the purchase options holding that the measure of damages of converted property is the market value at the time of conversion holding damage award resulting from a breach of an agreement to purchase securities is the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the asset at the time of the breach holding that court cannot make a finding of nominality without some concrete information regarding the anticipated fair market value of the leased equipment at the time the purchase option is to be exercised emphasis added