Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): corrective action. 3/3/17 Am. Compl. ¶¶ 120-30. For these reasons, the court has determined that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims alleged in the March 3, 2017 Amended Complaint. B. Standing. “Standing is [also] a threshold jurisdictional issue.” Myers Investigative & Sec. Servs. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “The party, invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the[ ] elements [of standing].” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). To establish standing under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1), a complaint must allege sufficient facts to show that the plaintiff: (1) is an interested party; and (2) was prejudiced by alleged errors in the procurement process. See Myers, 275 F.3d at 1370 (<HOLDING>); see also Labatt Food Serv., Inc. v. United 
 Holding statements: (A) holding parties to an exculpatory clause where the parties intent is clear (B) holding that standing under  1491b1 is limited to interested parties (C) holding that a district courts review of a  6330d appeal is limited to the administrative record and the parties are not entitled to discovery (D) holding that the lack of shareholder standing under texas law does not implicate constitutional standing (E) holding that standing existed
Output (English): holding that the lack of shareholder standing under texas law does not implicate constitutional standing