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.

[Q]: induced his employer to terminate his at-will employment?” See Haddle, 119 S.Ct. at 491. The Supreme Court ruled only on that issue. See Haddle, 119 S.Ct. at 492. The Eleventh circuit had already previously rejected the intracorpo-rate conspiracy doctrine. Because the in-tracorporate conspiracy doctrine was not before the Supreme Court, it would be a mistake to draw any inference from the Court’s silence on the issue. See United States v. Stewart, 650 F.2d 178, 180 (9th Cir.1981); Sacramento Valley Chapter of National Electrical Contractors Association v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 632 F.Supp. 1403, 1414 (E.D.Cal.1986), aff'd, 888 F.2d 604 (9th Cir.1989). The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine first developed in the anti-trust context. See Nelson, 200 F.2d at 914 (<HOLDING>). The Seventh Circuit extended the doctrine to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that as a general rule the prosecution is entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own choice (B) holding a corporation cannot conspire with its officers and agents to restrain trade in its own products (C) holding that a hospital can conspire with members of its medical staff (D) recognizing that agents of a corporation may be held criminally responsible for crimes committed in the name of the corporation (E) recognizing that representation of a corporation by its officers in administrative proceedings is allowed
[A]: holding that as a general rule the prosecution is entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own choice


[Q]: County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Ban zure beyond its lawful duration, such theft violates the Fourth Amendment. See Nelson v. Streeter, 16 F.3d 145, 151 (7th Cir.1994). The remaining question is whether Colaprete’s Fourth Amendment right against having his property converted following a search was clearly established when the alleged conversion occurred. The Seventh Circuit has held that the existence of this right is “[s]o obvious ... that we do not think the absence of case law can establish a defense of immunity.” Id. We respectfully disagree. This court has never applied the Fourth Amendment in this manner, and Supreme Court precedent tilts slightly against the existence of any constitutional right against theft during the course of a search. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533(<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Sixth Circuit has held that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding postdeprivation remedy is adequate even when deprivation was intentional (B) holding that doctrine does not violate due process (C) holding that theft by prison guards does not violate due process when postdeprivation remedy exists (D) holding that deprivation of property does not violate due process if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy is available and explaining that state tort actions are meaningful postdeprivation remedies (E) holding that a prison guards intentional destruction of a prisoners possessions did not give rise to a federal due process claim because state law provided an adequate postdeprivation tort remedy
[A]: holding postdeprivation remedy is adequate even when deprivation was intentional


[Q]: of an additional committee in such a situation. These courts rely upon the inherent power of judicial review over acts of the U.S. Trustee as well as relying upon the equitable powers granted to the courts under 11 U.S.C. see. 105. See, e.g., In re Value Merchants, Inc., 202 B.R. 280, 287-88 (E.D.Wis.1996); In re Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., 200 B.R. 933, 939-40 (M.D.Fla.1996); In re Barney’s, Inc., 197 B.R. 431, 439 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1996); In re Plabell Rubber Products, 140 B.R. 179, 180 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1992); In re Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 89 B.R. 1014, 1020-21 (Bankr.D.N.H.1988). “[I]f there is an objection to the act of the United States Trustee, there must be an ability to resort to the court; absent very specific and direct language, one should not concl 39 (9th Cir. BAP 1992)(<HOLDING>); In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc., 118 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in chapter 7 context the debtors had no power to transfer the property without the approval of the trustee (B) holding that the burden to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction resides with plaintiff (C) holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring  a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee (D) holding that the power to appoint and delete members of the committee now resides exclusively with the us trustee (E) recognizing power of appointment does not rest exclusively in any one branch
[A]:
holding that in chapter 7 context the debtors had no power to transfer the property without the approval of the trustee