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.

Input: Consider Input: to pay the purchase price. 3.Pursuant to the Securities Purchase Agreement, dated September 2, 2004, Mer-vyn's Holdings purchased 100% of the interests in Holdings I and Holdings II for $429,746,414,84. At the closing, Mervyn's Holdings used these funds to pay the purchase price. (Am.Compl.$ 58). 5 . Brandt v. Trivest II, Inc. (In re Plassein Int'l Corp.), 352 B.R. 36, (Bankr.D.Del.2006) ("Accordingly, the Court joins with those decisions that have (either implicitly or explicitly) evaluated fraudulent transfer complaints using Rule 8(a)(2)'s notice pleading standard") Id. at 40-41. See. e.g., Giuliano v. U.S. Nursing Corp. (In re Lexington Healthcare Group, Inc.), 339 B.R. 570, 574-75 (Bankr.D.Del.2006) (applying "liberal notice pleading standard"); AstroPower, 335 B.R. at 333 (<HOLDING>); Official Comm, of Unsecured Creditors v. DVI
Holding statements: (A) holding despite collective allegations in complaint the complaint was not deficient under rule 8a because it stated with sufficient particularity facts establishing a causal connection between the defendants actions and the constitutional deprivation (B) holding that a fraudulent transfer complaint need only set forth the facts with sufficient particularity to apprise the defendant fairly of the charges made against him (C) holding that the fraud claims against the defendant should not have been dismissed as the complaint provided him with fair notice of the claims made against her (D) holding that the information must set forth each element of the crime that it charges as well as fairly inform a defendant of the charge against which he must defend (E) holding that a criminal defendant is entitled to know the charges against him and to be tried solely upon the charges against him internal quotation marks and citation omitted

Output: (B)

Input: Consider Input: pre-trial release on April 12, 1985. Although this appeal has received expedited review, a decision has not yet been rendered by the Second Circuit. Thus a total of only fifty-six (56) non-excludable days have elapsed since Leon was arrested and detained (assuming that the filing of Elba Rodriguez's omnibus motion stopped the clock as to all the co-defendants). DISCUSSION Leon's first argument is based upon the interpretation of Section 3164(b) itself, which provides that, "[t]he periods of delay enumerated in Section 3161(h) are excluded in computing the time limitations specified in this section." Leon argues that this sent C.Cir.1976) and United States v. Mejias, 417 F.Supp. 579 (S.D.N.Y.1976), aff'd. on other grounds, sub nom., United States v. Martinez, 538 F.2d 921 (2d Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). According to the House Report accompanying
Holding statements: (A) holding generally that new rules of law should not be applied retroactively in habeas corpus cases (B) holding that a court examining if a law should be applied retroactively should consider whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment (C) holding that the first amendment definition should be applied by analogy in the franks setting (D) holding that factor 10 should not be applied when the victim is the only one at risk (E) holding that the exclusions should be applied

Output: (E)

Input: Consider Input: Alabama, 843 F.Supp. 1427, 1434 (M.D.Ala.1994) (a statute affecting not only the insurance industry, but also other non-insured health care plans and agreements failed the common sense test). The Court finds that the Any Willing Provider Statute fails the common sense test because it is not specifically directed towards the insurance industry, but, rather, it expressly applies to entities outside the insurance industry, such as employers and Taft-Hartley trusts. See La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 40:2202(3)(a)-(b) (West 1987); Hayden, 843 F.Supp. at 1434 ("[although [the statute at issue there] may have a substantial effect on the insurance industry, the law affects other health care plans and agreements even though they are not a part of an insurance contract"); cf. Stuart Circle, 995 F.2d at 504 (<HOLDING>). Because Louisiana's Any Willing Provider
Holding statements: (A) holding analytically analogous statute failed the commonsense view where although the statute may have a substantial effect on the insurance industry the law affects other healthcare plans and agreements even though they are not part of an insurance agreement (B) holding that a probate courts jurisdiction is limited to that expressly conferred or which is necessarily implied from those expressly conferred (C) holding that section 624155 is not a statute which regulates the insurance industry because the statute does not meet the three prong test enunciated in union labor life ins co v pireno 458 us 119 129 102 sct 3002 73 led2d 647 1982 in so holding the court reasoned that although section 624155 is directed toward the insurance industry and applies only to the insurance industry the statute transfers or spreads no policyholder risk and the statute is not an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured see also american intl group inc v siemens bldg techs inc 881 so2d 7 12 fladistctapp2004 holding that section 624155 is not a law regulating insurance to which mccarranferguson might apply citing anschultz 850 f2d 1467 (D) holding that a federal statute 12 usc 92 which expressly permits national banks to sell insurance in small towns is a statute which specifically relates to the business of insurance and preempts a state statute which prohibits banks from selling insurance (E) holding that virginias statute was expressly limited to entities within the insurance industry
Output: (E)