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.

[EX Q]: 8 F.3d 713, 716 (9th Cir.1993) ("The purpose of NEPA is to protect the environment, not the economic interests of those adversely affected by agency decisions."); Port of Astoria v. Hodel, 595 F.2d 467, 475 (9th Cir.1979) (purely financial interests are outside of NEPA's zone of interests). Accordingly, we have consistently held that purely economic interests do not fall within NEPA's zone of interests: "[A] plaintiff who asserts purely economic injuries does not have standing to challenge an agency action under NEPA." Nevada Land Action Ass'n, 8 F.3d at 716; see also Ranchers Cattleman v. United States Dep't of Agric., 415 F.3d 1078, 1102 (9th Cir.2005) (an economic injury alone will not support a claim under NEPA); Western Radio Servs. Co. v. Espy, 79 F.3d 896, 903 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Port of Astoria, 595 F.2d at 475 (holding
Holding statements: (A) recognizing the cause of action (B) holding that a plaintiff whose only complaint was that agency action would cause economic harm asserted an interest outside nepas zone of interests (C) holding that the plaintiff did not have standing because it was not able to demonstrate how its economic interests fell within the zone of interests protected by the nhpa (D) recognizing cause of action (E) holding that the public interest in expression must be weighed against the plaintiffs economic and noneconomic interests
[EX A]: (B)

[EX Q]: CBL claim that if the merger is effected, the public will be harmed because Sparrow Hospital will no longer provide late re at the incipiency and block the merger. This court does not find irreparable injury will result from not enjoining the merger because this court sees a very minimal probability that a divestiture would ever be warranted in the future. For reasons that will be explained infra, this court is of the opinion that plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits. Also, plaintiffs claim that if the merger is not enjoined they may lose standing to challenge it, thereby suffering irreparable harm. This court finds no merit in this contention. In making this argument, plaintiffs rely on the case of Arrow-Hart & Hegeman Electric 477, 97 S.Ct. 690, 50 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977) (<HOLDING>). For instance, as described above, GLASCCO and
Holding statements: (A) holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a 2 claim (B) holding that plaintiff must show antitrust injury meaning injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and which flows from defendants unlawful acts (C) holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation (D) holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing (E) holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: between Marcon Exhibits, Eekstein's Workshop, and the DSC." Resp. to Mot., Ex. K at 1. The letter notes that "based on our discussions, it is clear that the parties possess a commonality of interest regarding the representation of AMTC against EPA and the Exhibition and are not adverse with one another or the DSC." Ibid. Prihod signed the letter on behalf of Eek-stein's Workshop and DSC, and Robert Gardella signed on behalf of Marcon Eek-stein and himself in his individual capacity. When an organization deals with its officers, directors, or members, Michigan law respects the separate identities of those involved, especially with respect to matching lawyers with clients. Fassihi v. Sommers, Schwartz, Silver, Schwartz & Tyler, P.C., 107 Mich.App. 509, 514, 309 N.W.2d 645, 648 (1981) (<HOLDING>). The ethics rules allow an lawyer to represent
Holding statements: (A) holding that individual shareholders of a corporation could disregard the corporate form and assert that a loan made to their corporation was usurious where the lender insisted that the shareholders incorporate an entity to receive the proceedseven though the proceeds were for the individual shareholders benefitsolely to avoid the lower usury rate for individual borrowers (B) holding that in a merger shareholders are effectively purchasing shares in a new corporation while losing their status as shareholders in the previous corporation (C) holding that the trustee could not bring a claim against sole shareholders of bankrupt corporation where shareholders had not looted or otherwise injured the corporation (D) holding that a corporation exists as an entity apart from its shareholders even where the corporation has but one shareholder the general proposition of corporate identity apart from its shareholders leads us to conclude in accordance with decisions from other jurisdictions that the attorneys client is the corporation and not the shareholders (E) holding that even where no attorneyclient relationship exists between a shareholder and the corporate attorney this does not necessarily mean that the law firm had no fiduciary duty to the shareholder and observing that instances in which the corporation attorneys stand in a fiduciary relationship to individual shareholders are obviously more likely to arise where the number of shareholders is small in such cases it is not really a matter of the courts piercing the corporate entity
[EX A]:
(D)