of title thereunder is not a “security interest” ... Whether a lease is intended as security is to be determined by the facts of each case; however, (a) the inclusion of an option to purchase does not of itself make the lease one intended for security, and (b) an agreement that upon compliance with the terms of the lease the lessee shall become or has the option to become the owner of the property for no additional consideration or for a nominal consideration does make the lease one intended for security. By the 1970s, this provision had generated considerable litigation and academic commentary, with particular emphasis on the interests of claimants in bankruptcy. See, e.g., Feldman v. First National City Bank (In re Leasing Consultants, Inc.), 486 F.2d 367, 372 (2d Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>); DeVita Fruit Co. v. FCA Leasing Corp. (In re
holding that the question of whether a bankruptcy trustee or a putative lessor was entitled to the proceeds of an equipment sale depended on whether a true lease was involved when the lease is intended as a security interest article 9 applies however a bona fide lease is not affected by article 9 holding in a reclamation action against a bankruptcy trustee that the determination of whether the lease instruments were true leases or security agreements is critical holding that the trustee of a nominee trust functions more as an agent than as a true trustee holding that the trustee could not avoid a security interest under section 549 when that security interest was authorized by the bankruptcy court holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring  a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee