Detailed Instructions: 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.
Problem:agreements was the product of collusion among all defendants. (Tr. at 33-35; Pl. Mem. at 18-19.) This Court disagrees. Plaintiffs propose two distinct grounds for invalidation of their arbitration agreements: (1) collusion by defendants renders them agreements unenforceable, and (2) defendants' collusive beh igible economic transaction" in which the parties agreed to a mechanism for resolving disputes. In contrast to the circumstance where Chase and Citibank withheld material information from cardholders, there is no evidence that Bank One Delaware (f.k.a. First USA), Bank of America, MBNA or Household withheld relevant information from their cardholders. Thus, these issuing banks' arbitration agreements may be enforced. See Rooney v. Columbia Pictures, 538 F.Supp. 211 (S.D.N.Y.1982) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs' argument that defendants'
Holding statements: (A) holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing (B) holding that an agreement in violation of antitrust laws may be enforceable where the parties underlying conduct is legal (C) holding that plaintiff need only demonstrate a significant threat of injury from an impending violation of the antitrust laws (D) holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation (E) holding that a court may enforce a contract when it does not mandate illegal conduct despite an antitrust violation
Solution:
holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing