With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the question is whether such a discount is legally allowed. Although Iowa law was clear at the time Sieg made its valuation that a minority discount is not permitted, we have never decided whether a discount applicable to all shares of a closely-held corporation is permissible. Security State Bank, 554 N.W.2d at 889. Other courts considering this issue have disagreed. See Rigel Corp. v. Cutchall, 245 Neb. 118, 511 N.W.2d 519, 525-26 (1994) (noting some jurisdictions allow marketability discounts and others do not, and listing cases); Fletcher § 5906.120, at 436-37 (discussing whether a marketability discount may be applied). Therefore, we cannot say Sieg had no legal basis for taking such a discount here. Cf. Wetherbee v. Economy Fire & Cas. Co., 508 N.W.2d 657, 662 (Iowa 1993) (<HOLDING>). We also note that Sieg’s use of a

A: holding that insured may recover attorneys fees from insurer where insurer acts in bad faith
B: holding that the district of columbia is among the many jurisdictions that have recognized a cause of action in tort for the bad faith refusal of an insurer to pay
C: holding that under montana common law an insurer cannot be held liable for bad faith in denying a claim if the insurer had a reasonable basis for contesting the claim
D: holding insurer was not acting in bad faith in denying underinsured motorist benefits where denial was based on an issue of law unsettled in iowa and on which other jurisdictions disagreed
D.