With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". may be situations in which a publicity campaign, ostensibly directed toward influencing governmental action, is a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor and the application of the Sherman Act would be justified.” 365 U.S. at 144, 81 S.Ct. at 533. When the defendant claims that it is immune from liability based upon activities before an adjudicative body, the immunity can be overcome if the sham exception applies, although the elements of the exception are not entirely certain. Compare Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board, 542 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 940, 97 S.Ct. 1571, 51 L.Ed.2d 787 (1977), noted in 30 Vand.L.Rev. 75 (1977) (<HOLDING>) with Associated Radio Service Company v. Page

A: holding that the noerrpennington doctrine applies to collective presentations in litigation
B: holding that repeated baseless opposition before an adjudicative body does not result in loss of noerrpennington immunity absent conduct external to or abusive of the adjudicatory process
C: holding that the governments lack of direct evidence as to defendants knowledge does not demonstrate that its case was baseless
D: holding that the combination of investigatory and adjudicatory functions in one judicial disciplinary agency does not violate due process
B.