With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". fair, independent of the board’s beliefs.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); Edward P. Welch, et al., Mergers & Acquisitions Deal Litigation Under Delaware Corporation Law § 4.02[A][2] (2014) (“The applicable standard of review can have nearly dispositive consequences in deal litigation alleging a breach of fiduciary duty. When a decision is made by a majority of well-informed, disinterested, and independent directors, that decision is generally protected by the deferential business judgment rule.... When the business judgment rule is overcome, and/or when a controlling stockholder stands on both sides of a challenged transaction, the courts may apply the more rigorous entire fairness standard of review.”). 29 . See, e.g., Gantler v. Stephens, 965 A.2d 695 (Del.2009) (<HOLDING>); Kahn v. Lynch Commc’ns Syst., Inc., 638 A.2d

A: holding rookerfeldman inapplicable where the district court could and did find that the plaintiffs constitutional claims had merit without also finding that the state court erred
B: holding that issues underlying all counts were sufficiently intertwined that the separate appeal of the summary judgment counts would complicate the trial of the remaining counts
C: holding that the trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiffs defamation claim
D: holding that the plaintiffs had alleged specific conduct from which a duty of loyalty violation can reasonably be inferred and thus finding that the court of chancery had erred in dismissing the relevant counts against the defendant directors
D.