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: Sullivan told the bankruptcy court that pending the resolution of the involuntary bankruptcy case, Focus intended to make ordinary business expenditures and would preserve and protect the company's assets. As noted supra in Section I-D, that day, Sullivan authorized the disbursement of $700,000 of Focus' funds in a severance package to himself, Rubin, Rubin's adult children, and others. A rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Sullivan's statement to the court was knowingly false. A rational juror could also have convicted Rubin for aiding and abetting the statement. Rubin participated in several meetings with Sullivan and Mousseau where they prepared declarations in response to Sears' motion to appoint an interim trustee. Cf. McCormick, 72 F.3d at 1410-11 (<HOLDING>). In a January 28, 2002 declaration, Sullivan
Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement (B) holding trial court reversibly erred in not permitting appellant to withdraw his plea where court erroneously stated appellant could appeal motion was in fact not dispositive and appellant was entitled to rely on the courts statement (C) holding evidence of false statement was insufficient where an appellant signed a bankruptcy petition without reading it (D) holding that evidence was insufficient to establish that appellant remained unlawfully on school property because as a minor appellant could not leave school without parental consent (E) holding that because appellant was not under arrest or detained at time he gave officer a false name the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for failure to identify
A:
holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement