is correct. As previously discussed, several different common law tests for assessing the nominality of the option price stated in a purported lease agreement emerged from the caselaw interpreting Old § 1-201(37). The drafters of New § 1-201(37) incorporated two distinct nominality tests into the amended statute: the FMV Standard and the Option Price/Performance Cost Test. If the drafters of New § 1-201(37) had intended for nominality to be measured by the Percentage Tests, then they presumably would have incorporated these standards (or some variation thereof) into the current version of the statute. Thus, it would not be appropriate to measure nomi-nality using a common law test that the drafters of New § 1-201(37) opted not to include in the statute. See Charles, 278 B.R. at 224 (<HOLDING>); Beckham, 275 B.R. at 604 (concluding that
holding that while proper statistical evidence can be the most important vehicle for showing class discrimination the plaintiff failed to compare the percentage of blacks hired for given jobs with the percentage of blacks qualified for those positions and it was not sufficient to merely show that black managers formed a smaller percentage of the manager pool than did managers of other races holding that epa need not incorporate particular tests when evaluating applications if relevant statutory language does not explicitly require such tests holding that because the enactment of new  120137 disavows percentage tests  authorities applying the percentage tests have been superceded by new  120137s enactment quoting white  summers  303 at 20 holding that a prima facie case of discrimination is not established merely by the number of peremptory strikes against blacks in cases where the percentage of blacks on the empaneled jury is higher than the percentage of the venire pool holding that the percentage of minority faculty need not approximate the percentage of minority students