In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Input: Consider Input: was merely a voidable act. They rely on Sikes v. Global Marine, Inc., 881 F.2d 176 (5th Cir.1989), rehearing denied by 888 F.2d 1388 (5th Cir.1989), in which the Fifth Circuit found that the filing of a complaint in violation of the stay was voidable but not void. Id. at 178-79. The court reasoned that provisions of the Bankruptcy Code such as section 362(d), by giving courts the power to grant retroactive relief from a stay, indicated Congressional intent that acts in violation of a stay be simply voidable. Id. Spring Meadows, however, urges us to adopt the rule of the Ninth Circuit that any act committed in violation of an automatic stay is void. Hillis Motors, Inc. v. Hawaii Auto. Dealers Ass’n, 997 F.2d 581, 586 (9th Cir.1993); In re Schwartz, 954 F.2d 569, 571-72 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The circuit court found such acts void even 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that any action taken in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is void and without effect (B) holding that violations of the automatic stay are void and rejecting the reasoning of sikes (C) holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void (D) holding that the automatic stay did not bar the filing of a proof of claim where the debtor actively litigated a separate action during the pending bankruptcy proceeding because to permit the automatic stay provision to be used as a trump card played after an unfavorable result was reached  would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the automatic stay (E) holding that an action taken in violation of the automatic stay is void ab initio

Output: recognizing that any action taken in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is void and without effect


Input: Consider Input: appealed the judgment of the Court of Veterans Appeals to this court. On appeal the Secretary contends that the Court of Veterans Appeals erred by not deferring to the Department’s reasonable interpretation of the statutory provisions governing claims for accrued benefits. The Secretary also disputes Mrs. Jones’s assertion that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal. ANALYSIS I. Jurisdiction to hear appeals from final decisions of the Court of Veterans Appeals is conferred upon this court by 38 U.S.C. § 7292 (1994). Under the express terms of that statute, however, we “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U 625, 110 S.Ct. 2658, 2663-64, 110 L.Ed.2d 563 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to hear 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a district courts remand order effectively invalidating certain regulations of the secretary of health and human services was an immediately appealable order (B) holding sanctions order pursuant to district courts inherent powers not immediately appealable (C) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (D) holding that the denial of a motion to remand is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (E) holding such denial to be an immediately appealable collateral final order

Output: holding sanctions order pursuant to district courts inherent powers not immediately appealable


Input: Consider Input: during the amended period to above $6 per share, before crashing to $2. 19 as a result of FCPA-related disclosures. Doc. 63 at 3. As for Cuneo’s own losses, his original loss chart only shows purchases prior to the corrective disclosures about FCPA subpoenas, raising doubts about whether he even has standing to represent FCPA-related claims. Doc. 70-2. Cuneo responds that HDY represents an aggregation of unrelated plaintiffs with lesser financial interest in the litigation. Doc. 69 at 15. An amended loss chart filed with Cuneo’s amended complaint, however, shows he purchased additional stock after the first FCPA disclosure but sold it all prior to the second FCPA disclosure. Doc. 70-6 at 8. See Dura Pharma., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 342, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005) (<HOLDING>); In re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Sec. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the permit process where it could not show that it would ever be genuinely threatened by an unconstitutional prior restraint in this case (B) holding that a plaintiff would have to show that he was not promoted because of his race not that he was a member of a protected group and was not promoted (C) holding that where one plaintiff has standing we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit (D) holding that squatter in home did not have standing to challenge search of house where he was staying (E) holding a plaintiff did not have standing to show loss causation where he completely sold out of a security by the time the operative corrective disclosure was made


Output: holding that plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the permit process where it could not show that it would ever be genuinely threatened by an unconstitutional prior restraint in this case