With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See, e.g., In re Four Seasons Secs. Laws Litig., 493 F.2d 1288, 1290 (10th Cir.1974); In re Prudential Secs. Inc. Ltd. Partnerships Litig., 164 F.R.D. at 368-69; Georgine v. Amchem Prod., Inc., 1995 WL 251402, at *4; In re Del-Val Fin. Corp. Secs. Litig., 154 F.R.D. at 96; Mars Steel, 120 F.R.D. at 52;. To establish excusable neglect, a movant must show both good faith and a reasonable basis for not acting within the specified period. See In re Del-Val Fin. Corp. Secs. Litig., 154 F.R.D. at 96. Even upon a finding of excusable neglect, however, it is still in the district court’s discretion whether to grant the extension. See Fed. R.Civ.P. (6)(b)(2) (“the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion ...”); see also In re Four Seasons Secs. Laws Litig., 493 F.2d at 1290 (<HOLDING>); Supermarkets Gen., 490 F.2d at 1186

A: holding that a sale must be both fair and reasonable in price and made in good faith
B: holding that a finding of specific intent to defraud necessarily excludes a finding of good faith
C: holding that the district courts good faith finding is reviewed for clear error
D: recognizing that a finding of excusable neglect under rule 6b2 requires both a demonstration of good faith and a reasonable basis for not complying within the specified period
D.