Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a “financial institution” and a “financial participant.” JPMC unquestionably fits the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of “financial institution.” See 11 U.S.C. § 101(22) (defining “financial institution” to include a “commercial bank”). JPMC also is a “financial participant” because it is a party to outstanding safe harbor contracts totaling at least $1 billion in gross notional or principal dollar amount. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(22A) (defining “financial participant”). That JPMC fits the applicable definitions for safe harbor protection is not in dispute, and the Amended Complaint concedes this point. See First Am. Compl. ¶ 10 (identifying JPMC as a “financial institution”); ¶ 76 (identifying JPMC as a “national banking association chartered under the laws of the United States”); ¶¶ 66-67 (<HOLDING>). B. The Clearance Agreement, the August 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a successor corporation had a duty to arbitrate the extent of its obligations under its predecessors cba because there was substantial continuity in the business enterprise (B) recognizing that although walt disney world wdw was a corporate entity separate from disney companys other subsidiaries sufficient promotion of wdws business by the other subsidiaries could support jurisdiction and remanding for a hearing on the extent to which the subsidiaries furthered wdws enterprises (C) recognizing the extent of jpmcs derivatives obligations to lbhi and its subsidiaries (D) recognizing that the extent of the protection accorded a privacy right at common law rested in part on the degree of dissemination of the allegedly private fact and the extent to which the passage of time rendered it private (E) holding outside of the context of title vii or the adea that section 24 fifth preempts state law to the extent but only to the extent that it conflicts
Output (English): recognizing that although walt disney world wdw was a corporate entity separate from disney companys other subsidiaries sufficient promotion of wdws business by the other subsidiaries could support jurisdiction and remanding for a hearing on the extent to which the subsidiaries furthered wdws enterprises