predict general economic conditions that also may affect demand for its products or services.”); In re Organogenesis Inc., 316 B.R. 574, 588 (Bankr.D.Mass.2004). The Debtors, therefore, would be faced with a difficult burden of showing that it was unreasonable assumptions, and not the effect of these catastrophic events, that led them to overvalue the Pulver assets. The Debtors would face similar obstacles in prevailing on its claims regarding the 2003 sale. Given the intangible and nature of the Pulver assets, and the industries from which they derived their revenue, the prevailing market price during the transaction period is likely to be the most accurate assessment of value for assets of this nature. In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc., 232 B.R. 565, 572 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y.1999) (<HOLDING>); In re Bay Plastics, Inc., 187 B.R. 315, 330
recognizing that even a discount from estimated market value may be considered reasonable where the transaction involves a unique object or intangible property holding that the measure of damages of converted property is the market value at the time of conversion holding that if despite repairs there remains a loss in actual market value estimated as of the collision date such deficiency is to be added to the cost of repairs holding that there was no evidence of market value where owners testimony affirmatively showed that it was based on personal value holding that a retained equity interest is property even if it has no market value