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.

Example Input: amount and terms of the deductions ...” In case of any failure to pay wages due to an employee as required by Section 41-10-40 or 41-10-50 the employee may recover in a civil action an amount equal to three times the full amount of the unpaid wages, plus costs and reasonable attorney’s fees as the court may allow. § 41-10-80(C). The South Carolina Supreme Court has interpreted this treble damages provision to mean that the decision to award the penalty of treble damages is discretionary, and the penalty should not be imposed “if there is a good faith dispute over wages allegedly due.” Rice, 456 S.E.2d at 383. Fruehauf asks us to extend the requirement that there be a bona fide, good faith wage dispute to require that Wall show that Fruehauf willf 335 S.C. 598, 518 S.E.2d 591 (1999) (<HOLDING>); O’Neal v. Intermedical Hospital of South 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that an attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client (B) holding that the lack of a confidentiality agreement does not necessarily defeat an argument that information is a trade secret because where an employee acquires during the course of his employment a special technique or process developed by his employer he is under a duty not to use it to the detriment of his employer (C) holding that an attorney who breaches a fiduciary duty to a client forfeits his right to compensation without any requirement that the client prove actual harm (D) holding that an employee who breaches the duty of loyalty to his employer forfeits his right to compensation and creates a good faith dispute over the payment of his wages by virtue of his bad behavior (E) holding that when an employee is injured by his employers tortious conduct his employer owes him damages and compensation under the act
Example Output: recognizing that an attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client

Example Input: If a statement does not contain any expressly exculpatory material, the Government need not produce that statement to the defense. To hold otherwise would impose an insuperable burden on the Government to determine what facially non-exculpatory evidence might possibly be favorable to the accused by inferential reasoning. We are confident that the Supreme Court did not intend the Brady holding to sweep so broadly. United States v. Comosona, 848 F.2d 1110, 1115 (10th Cir.1988); see also Harris v. Kuba, 486 F.3d 1010, 1016 (7th Cir.2007) {“Brady does not require that police officers or prosecutors explore multiple potential inferences to discern whether evidence that is not favorable to a defendant could become favorable.”); United States v. Marrero, 904 F.2d 251, 261 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). The Court finds that just such inferential 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the presentation of a new theory does not constitute the presentation of a new issue on which a jury trial should be granted as of right under  rule 38b (B) holding that there is no constitutional duty to do a better investigation and that a decision not to conduct a more thorough investigation does not invade an accuseds rights (C) holding that the burden is on the plaintiff (D) holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence (E) holding that brady does not place any burden upon the government to conduct a defendants investigation or assist in the presentation of the defenses case
Example Output: holding that the presentation of a new theory does not constitute the presentation of a new issue on which a jury trial should be granted as of right under  rule 38b

Example Input: price. Moreover, as a practical matter, there is no “interim” between the placement of the customer’s bid and its acceptance or rejection during which the customer could exert control over Priceline. The electronic transaction is nearly instantaneous. In effecting that transaction, Priceline’s actions are akin to those of an intermediary or middleman rifling through its inventory of discounted hotel rooms until it locates an item for which the customer has stated a willingness to pay a specified price. The fact that only Priceline has access to both its algorithm and its particular inventory of discounted hotel rooms does not create a fiduciary relationship with a customer where none otherwise exists. See Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com-Tronics, Inc., 255 Conn. 20, 42, 761 A.2d 1268 (2000) (<HOLDING>). No different conclusion regarding agency is 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that technical expertise or sjuperior skill and knowledge alone do not create a fiduciary duty among parties involved in a business transaction (B) holding that a fiduciary who receives consideration in connection with a transaction involving plan assets violated section 406b and a nonfiduciary who facilitated that transaction could be liable (C) holding that parties intent to create or extend agency relationship may be inferred from their conduct viewed in light of all circumstances surrounding transaction (D) recognizing step transaction doctrine whereby courts must consider all steps of transaction in light of entire transaction so that substance of transaction will control over form of each step (E) holding that a sellers superior knowledge of a product does not justify imposition of a fiduciary relationship in the absence of a conscious assumption of fiduciary duties
Example Output:
holding that a fiduciary who receives consideration in connection with a transaction involving plan assets violated section 406b and a nonfiduciary who facilitated that transaction could be liable