With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". directors for cause, it is highly doubtful whether directors, as opposed to stockholders, may be empowered by either the certificate of incorporation or by-laws to remove a director for cause.”). 5 . See Blish v. Thompson Automatic Arms Corp., 64 A.2d 581, 602 (Del.1948) (number of directors determined by stockholders at annual or special meeting); Stroud, 585 A.2d at 1308 (number of directors to be set by board but not less than 9 or more than 13); Ellin v. Consol. Caribou Silver Mines, 67 A.2d 416, 418-19 (Del.Ch.1949) (Seitz, V.C.) (number of directors set at three through stockholders' election of three directors at annual meeting); Drexler, supra, § 13.01[2] (describing methods for fixing number of directors). 6 . See, e.g., Shaw v. Agri-Mark, Inc., 663 A.2d 464, 469-70 (Del.1995) (<HOLDING>); Berlin v. Emerald Partners, 552 A.2d 482, 494

A: holding in a class action suit that owning stock in a corporation creates a sufficient nexus between a nonresident shareholder and the jurisdiction of incoiporation to bind him to a judicial determination of rights that attach to that stock eg does this class of stock have a right to vote including the right to hold fiduciaries to account providing that notice and opportunity to be heard are provided
B: recognizing longestablished rule that a corporation may rely on its stock ledger in determining which stockholders are eligible to vote
C: holding that the right to vote is fundamental
D: recognizing that a court may rely on matters of which a court may take judicial notice
B.