instruction:
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.
question:
defense, or a development in the controlling law that foreclosed the claim. The record here betrays no significant change in circumstances prior to trial that reasonably should have caused the plaintiffs to conclude that their claims were no longer viable. In fact, the most notable development in the case prior to trial sent a contrary signal: the court denied the Mayor’s post-discovery summary judgment motion as to the plaintiffs’ central political discrimination claim. While the fact that a claim has survived summary judgment is not, on its own, “entitled to decretory significance,” Foster, 943 F.2d at 144, it has some value in determining whether a claim was or became unreasonable or without foundation. See id.; Walker v. NationsBank of Fla. N.A., 53 F.3d 1548, 1559 (11th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Jensen v. Stangel, 762 F.2d 815, 818 (9th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that district court abused its discretion in finding suit unreasonable and groundless where inter alia the court had denied two prior summary judgment motions (B) holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact (C) holding that the trial court grants or denies motions for summary judgment on the basis of what is contained in the motions for summary judgment and the responses thereto (D) holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint (E) holding district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on summary judgment motion where inter alia plaintiff had been given repeated notices court intended to rule on motion and it was plaintiffs burden to rebut defendants evidence
answer:
(A)


question:
policy becomes a composite of factors that bear on a better answer to the question, ‘How shall the losses be distributed?’ ”). Slain and Kripke argued that “[t]he situation with which we are concerned involves two risks: (1) the risk of business insolvency from whatever cause; and (2) the risk of illegality in securities issuance.” Slain & Kripke, supra, at 286. Analyzing the first risk — that of business insolvency-Slain and Kripke observed that the absolute priority rule allocates this risk to shareholders. Under the absolute priority rule, “stockholders seeking to recover their investments cannot be paid before provable creditor claims have been satisfied in full.” Id. at 261; see generally Consol. Rock Prods. Co. v. Du Bois, 312 U.S. 510, 520-21, 61 S.Ct. 675, 85 L.Ed. 982 (1941) (<HOLDING>); Case v. Los Angeles Lumber Prods. Co., 308 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that claims raised in later litigation were barred because they could have been fully litigated in chapter 11 reorganization process (B) holding that stockholders cannot participate in a plan of reorganization unless creditors claims have been satisfied in full (C) holding that plan language giving plan administrator power to determine which employees are eligible to participate in the plan and providing all parties dealing with the plan an interpretation of plan provisions on request indicates deferential standard of review of trustee eligibility decisions (D) holding that remedies provided in the bankruptcy code for enforcing a chapter 11 plan of reorganization are not exclusive (E) holding that debtor whose plan of reorganization had been confirmed by bankruptcy court could not later bring lender liability claims against creditors where those claims could have been raised in bankruptcy proceeding
answer:
(B)


question:
544 U.S. 336, 346, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005); Lentell, 396 F.3d at 172). Accord Emer e.g., In re Nortel Networks, 238 F.Supp.2d at 629. 115 . Ganino, 228 F.3d at 167. 116 . See id. 117 . Compl. ¶ 15. 118 . See id. 119 . See, e.g., ¶¶ 80, 86, 99. 120 . Id. ¶¶ 82, 84, 88, 90. 121 . In re Par Pharm., 733 F.Supp. at 675. 122 . Compl. ¶ 58. 123 . See id. ¶ 59. 124 . See id. ¶¶ 44-45, 52-56. 125 . See id. ¶ 105. 126 . See id. ¶ 80. 127 . Id. 128 . See id. ¶ 81. 129 . See id. 130 . See In re Vivendi Universal, 381 F.Supp.2d at 182. 131 . Compl. ¶¶ 65-66. 132 . See id. ¶ 68. 133 . See id. ¶ 71. 134 . See id. 135 . Id. ¶ 101. 136 . Id. ¶ 69. 137 . See id. ¶ 72. 138 . See id. ¶ 70. 139 . See id. ¶¶ 73, 80-81, 101. 140 . See id. ¶¶ 73-74. 141 . See Pu o Instruments, 235 F.R.D. at 232 (<HOLDING>). 160 . In re Scottish Re Group, 524 F.Supp.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that scienter requirement was met where gaap violations led to restatement and individual defendants were aware of weak internal controls (B) holding that the failure to maintain the facility in a safe condition or to warn of hazards was an  operational failure following the planning decision to operate and maintain the public landing (C) holding that a failure to maintain sufficient internal controls to avoid fraud is  indicative of scienter (D) holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud (E) holding that failure to follow gaap without more is insufficient to establish scienter
answer:

(C)