Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
were executed. The record therefore contains no evidence establishing what the original parties to the transaction anticipated at contract inception concerning QDS’s “cost of performing under the [L]ease [A]greement[s] if the option is not exercised.” UCC § 1-201(37)(x) (West 2002). Without this evidence, the Court is unable to make the statutory calculation required under New § l-201(37)’s Option Price/Performance Cost Test. See APB Online, 259 B.R. at 819-20 (declining to consider affidavit testimony because affiant did not “participate[] in the lease transactions or the computation of the option prices” and holding that the “record is insufficient to permit [the court] to conclude ... that the ... option price was or was not nominal”); Edison Bros. Stores, 207 B.R. at 811-12 ; Zaleha, 159 B.R. at 585-86 (“Debtor’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the debtor in possession could utilize the strongarm powers of the trustee to avoid an unperfected security interest even though the debtor knew of the interest prior to bankruptcy because the two are distinct entities and the debtor in possessions responsibility is to preserve the estates assets for the benefit of the creditors
B. holding that motor vehicle to be retained by chapter 13 debtor should be valued at the price the debtor could get for it in a free and open market ie its fair market value
C. 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
D. 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
E. holding that since motor vehicle contract between the debtor and fifth third bank was a lease and not a security agreement the debtor was required to treat fifth third banks claim in his chapter 13 plan as a lease and not as a secured debt which meant that the debtor could not obligate fifth third bank to finance the purchase of his vehicle
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.