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]: that post-1978 refinancing of a debt did not constitute a novation, thus debtor could not avoid liens on equipment it owned prior to the 1978 enactment of the Bankruptcy Code where no new money was advanced, no additional security was encumbered, and varying the term of years and interest rates was done to benefit the debtor); In re Hemingson, 84 B.R. 604 (Bankr.D.Minn.1988) (<HOLDING>); Geist v. Converse County Bank (In re Geist),
Holding statements: (A) holding that in georgia pursuant to 9107 of the ucc refinancing of a promissory note transforms the obligation thereby destroying purchase money nature of the security interest therefore the creditor lost its purchase money security interest pmsi in a television set when the loans were consolidated and lien was avoidable id 89 br 264 18 bcd 58 (B) holding that there was no presumption of a gift where the wifes money was used to make the purchase but title was placed in the name of the husband and finding the facts sufficient to establish a purchase money resulting trust in favor of the wife (C) holding that under minnesota law refinancing and consolidation of purchase money loans did not destroy their purchase money character for bankruptcy lien avoidance purposes (D) holding that a purchase money security in jewelry was not lost when the perfected purchase money security interest was consolidated with a subsequent retail installment contract (E) holding section 501 applies to both purchase money and refinancing mortgages
[A]: holding that in georgia pursuant to 9107 of the ucc refinancing of a promissory note transforms the obligation thereby destroying purchase money nature of the security interest therefore the creditor lost its purchase money security interest pmsi in a television set when the loans were consolidated and lien was avoidable id 89 br 264 18 bcd 58

[Q]: complaint nor any facts relating to VBCJ's General Order support an argument that Waters received less procedural due process than what is constitutionally required in the circumstances. Therefore, VBCJ's fee program does not violate Waters' right to procedural due process. C. Legitimate Penological Interest Finally, Waters' complaint, broadly construed, alleges that Virginia's one dollar per day room and board fee is not reasonably related to any legitimate penological interest. This claim also plainly fails, as there are several conceivable rationales to support the finding that VBCJ's fee program is " 'reasonably related' to promoting a legitimate penological interest." Sample v. Angelone, 173 F.3d 425 (Table), 1999 WL 52347, *1 (4th Cir. Feb.5 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Section 53.1-131.3 provides as follows:
Holding statements: (A) holding that in a prisoners eighth amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need expert testimony is necessary when the seriousness of injury or illness would not be apparent to a lay person (B) holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs (C) holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (D) holding that deliberate indifference standard for imposing supervisory liability based on an eighth amendment violation is consistent with iqbal and collecting cases (E) holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation
[A]: holding that in a prisoners eighth amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need expert testimony is necessary when the seriousness of injury or illness would not be apparent to a lay person

[Q]: NLRB v. Princeton Memorial Hosp., 939 F.2d 174, 178 (4th Cir.1991) (quotations omitted) (ellipses in original). In determining whether the employing entity is administered by individuals responsible to public officials for purposes of the political subdivision exemption, courts and the Board generally consider whether a majority of the employer's governing body the governing board and executive officers is appointed by or subject to removal by public officials. See, e.g., Jefferson County, 732 F.2d at 125-26; Truman Med. Ctr., Inc. v. NLRB, 641 F.2d 570, 573 (8th Cir.1981); Economic Sec. Corp., 299 N.L.R.B. 562, 1990 WL 272722, at *2 & n. 10; Woodbury County Community Action Agency Employer, 299 N.L.R.B. 554, 1990 WL 267415, at *2; see also Princeton Memorial Hosp., 939 F.2d at 179 (<HOLDING>). Courts and the Board also consider whether
Holding statements: (A) holding that procedural unconscionability existed where a nursing home residents daughter met with the homes administrator for about five minutes during which time she was presented with a thirtyseven page document that included an arbitration clause and instructed that her fathers continued stay in the home was conditioned upon her signing the papers which the administrator flipped through and presented the signature pages (B) holding nursing home was political subdivision both because homes directors were responsible to elected officials and because the daytoday administration of center was directly tied to city (C) holding that where plaintiffs were entitled to recover both treble damages and punitive damages under the illinois nursing home care reform act both issues could be submitted to the jury and the plaintiff could choose which award to be reflected in the judgment (D) holding that although the state regulated and subsidized the nursing homes private parties not state officials made the administrative decisions therefore the decisions could not be treated as state action (E) holding that home purchased with spouses separate funds prior to marriage was transmuted into marital property because mortgage payments made from joint account home was used as marital residence and both parties devoted resources and energy into home
[A]:
holding that procedural unconscionability existed where a nursing home residents daughter met with the homes administrator for about five minutes during which time she was presented with a thirtyseven page document that included an arbitration clause and instructed that her fathers continued stay in the home was conditioned upon her signing the papers which the administrator flipped through and presented the signature pages