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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[Q]: Statement. They were, however, obtained prior to this Court’s actual approval of the Amended Disclosure Statement, which occurred on December 19, 2008 (i.e. at the joint hearing on approval of the Amended Disclosure Statement and the Amended Plan). Although typically a disclosure statement should be approved before the proponent solicits votes for the plan, here the premature solicitation was harmless and, as noted by the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia, a harmless failure to comply with § 1125’s solicitation requirements “is not necessarily fatal to the success of a Chapter 11 reorganization.” In re N.W. Recreational Activities, Inc., 8 B.R. 10, 12 (Bankr.D.Ga.1980); see also First Am. Bank of N.Y. v. Century Glove, Inc., 81 B.R. 274, 278-80 (D.Del.1988) (<HOLDING>). Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(d)(2)(B)(vi), 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that order denying confirmation of plan became final when upon being notified that the debtors did not intend to seek confirmation of an alternate plan the court dismissed their case (B) holding such agreements to be per se illegal (C) holding that per se statutory rule is not permissible under fourth amendment (D) holding hearing in chambers was not per se a violation of due process (E) holding that a plan proponents failure to obtain court approval of solicitation materials is not per se fatal to the confirmation process
[A]: (E)


[Q]: that on her return a company manager told Watson in a four-hour meeting in which she cried constantly that she was a poor and incompetent supervisor; that a manager transferred supervisory duties away from her and told her to go home; and that a personnel manager told her that she was considered a bitch and that she could either resign or be demoted to a position in which she would be supervised by her subordinate trainees. We believe that these facts, though covering a shorter period than that in Nolan, could constitute the necessary aggravating factors such that a trier of fact could (but not necessarily would) conclude that a reasonable person would find the conditions so intolerable and discriminatory as to justify resigning. See Ford v. Alfaro, 785 F.2d 835, 841-42 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); Bailey v. Binyon, 583 F.Supp. 923, 924-25, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding claims based on the fair labor standards act subject to arbitration (B) holding in a fair labor standards act case that a constructive discharge occurred when an employee was physically threatened on one occasion harassed over the next two weeks and not given sufficient work instructions to perform his job (C) holding right to liquidated damages under fair labor standards act nonwaivable (D) holding that discriminatory pay reduction under fair labor standards act does not constitute continuing violation (E) holding that the otca limitations period applied to a claim alleging a breach of the fair labor standards act by the state
[A]: (B)


[Q]: U.S., $147,900.00, 450 Fed.Appx. 261, 264 (4th Cir.2011) (finding a link between the defendant property and drugs when the claimant had a history of being involved with illegal drugs, the currency seized was allegedly related to drug activities, the cash seized was a large sum, and the claimant had no reported income or work history); United States v. $58,422.00 in U.S. Currency, 154 Fed.Appx. 20, 21-22 (9th Cir.2005) (finding a substantial link when the defendant property (cash and jewelry) was in close proximity to drugs, the claimant’s income was less than his monthly bills, and the claimant had no other source of income with which to have acquired the defendant property); United States v. $21,408.00 in U.S. Currency, No. 4:10-cv-138, 2010 WL 4687876, at *4 (S.D.Ga. Nov. 10, 2010) (<HOLDING>); United States v. $36,100.00 in U.S. Currency, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding invalid and of no effect provisions in a judgment purporting to retain jurisdiction in the trial court for six months over the issues of the amount of child support and maintenance  for the reason the respondent was currently unemployed  (B) holding that a complaint met the pleading requirements when it alleged that 36110 was found packaged an unusual manner the money was hidden in a traptype compartment in a van and there was a positive drug dog alert (C) holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant (D) holding that the rule g pleading standard was met when the cash amount seized was large 185000 the claimant had been unemployed for six months the cash was packaged in an unusual fashion the claimant attempted to avoid a search and gave a false statement to police and a drug dog alerted positively (E) holding no probable cause where naddispositive claimant gave false and evasive answers purchased ticket with cash the day of flight and had no luggage or identification
[A]:
(D)