With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1950. 11 . Of course, if Heard, Jr. prevails on any of these premises, all defendants prevail regardless of this court's earlier holdings regarding the defendants other than Heard, Jr. 12 . All of these claims fall under an umbrella of alleged bad business strategy. 13 . It is highly doubtful that advertising costs etc. could have resulted in such extensive losses. 14 . As explained by the court in Naguszewski, "The phrase 'debt for,' as it is used repeatedly in § 523(a), means 'debt as a result of or ‘debt by reason of,’ such that § 523(a)(4) requires that the debt at issue result from the debtor’s defalcation.” 2009 WL 6499348, at *4 (quoting Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213, 219, 118 S.Ct. 1212, 140 L.Ed.2d 341 (1998)) (citing Greenberg v. Schools, 711 F.2d 152, 156 (11th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>)). 15 . In Gheewalla, the Delaware Supreme

A: holding that evidence to prove a conspiracy need only be such that reasonable jurors could infer that the parties entered into an unlawful agreement
B: holding that plaintiff may be entitled to prevailing party status where the mediation agreement entered into by the parties was read into the record before a hearing officer
C: holding that the plaintiffs lawsuit which was filed despite a general release in the parties settlement agreement constituted a material breach of the settlement agreement
D: holding that a debt that was the result of debtors fraud could be exempted from discharge under  523a4 when the parties had later entered into a settlement agreement
D.