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: 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). In Landgraf, the Court noted that a statute only truly operates retroactively if applying it would “impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed.” Id. 114 S.Ct. at 1505; see also RTC v. Ford Motor Credit Corp., 30 F.3d 1384, 1387-88 (11th Cir.1994)(analyzing retroactivity of lease repudiation damage limitation provision of FIRREA). Thus, like other courts that have analyzed similar FIRREA provisions, we must address prior banking law to determine whether application of the damage limitation provisions of § 1821(e)(3) would have the retroactive effect defined in Landgraf. See, e.g., Ford Motor Credit, 30 F.3d at 1388 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that, in the Crafts’ case, it 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the act is not retroactive (B) holding that firreas damage limitations for repudiation of leases worked no substantive change in the law and thus their application was not retroactive (C) holding retroactive application (D) holding no retroactive application (E) recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary

A: holding that the act is not retroactive
****
Q: preventing employee from "working in any geographic space in which [employer] operates” where employer had interest in confidential information); Advanced Cable Ties, Inc. v. Hewes, No. 061995B, 2006 WL 3292810, at *1-2 (Mass.Super.Ct. Oct. 19, 2006) (lack of geographic scope restriction in non-compete not fatal to enforcement of restrictive covenant when employer was national company). 17 . See Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12-13 (Fla.1974) (citing Kenco Chem. and Manufacturing Co. v. Railey, 286 So.2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)); Flickenger v. R.J. Fitzgerald & Co., Inc., 732 So.2d 33, 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Balasco v. Gulf Holding, Inc., 707 So.2d 858, 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); see also Health Care Financial Enterprises, Inc. v. Levy, 715 So.2d 341, 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>). 18 .Under Florida law, courts are required to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract (B) holding that trial court is without authority to modify a settlement agreement but may enforce and interpret it (C) recognizing court has authority to modify agreement to cure any unreasonable provision as to duration or scope (D) holding that court may not refuse to enforce noncompete agreement solely because geographical area is unreasonable but rather must modify unreasonable restriction and enforce agreement as modified (E) holding an employer may partially enforce a noncompete agreement to the extent it is reasonable under the circumstances

A: holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract
****
Q: that both designated representatives for each of the proposed initiatives at issue here complied with this statutory mandate. In so doing, they certified that they were aware not only that they were required to attend all meetings at which their proposed initiatives would be considered, but also that any motion for rehearing would be heard at the Board's next meeting or within forty-eight hours after the expiration of the seven-day deadline for filing such motions. See § 1-40-107(1)(a). The email to Mr. Ottke and Mr. Slota from the Secretary of State's office suggesting that they were not required to attend the meeting on the motion for rehearing did not relieve them of their clear statutory obligation to do so. Cf. Comm. for Better Health Care v. Meyer, 830 P.2d 884, 892 (Colo.1992) (<HOLDING>). III. Conclusion T31 Because the Title Board 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the 1991 mixedmotive amendments do not apply to  1981 based on an independent analysis of the amendments and  1981 (B) holding that the ada amendments act does not apply to preamendment conduct (C) holding that where initiative proponents were provided with copies of relevant statutory amendments and related documents proponents did not reasonably rely on statements by the secretary of state to assume that amendments did not apply to their initiative (D) holding that amendments to procedure apply to both pending and future matters (E) holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively

A:
holding that the 1991 mixedmotive amendments do not apply to  1981 based on an independent analysis of the amendments and  1981
****