With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 111 .When it reversed the First Court of Appeals' judgment in part and remanded the plaintiffs SWDA claim for a new trial on the question of “arranger” status, the Texas Supreme Court in R.R. Street II declined to address whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the plaintiff proved the remaining elements of the defendant's liability as a matter of law. See 166 S.W.3d at 253, 255. The Texas Supreme Court gave no indication that it would reverse the Court of Appeals's findings on the remaining elements of SWDA liability. As a result, those undisturbed findings remain the Texas courts’ only pronouncement on these remaining elements and thus the best indicator of what the Texas Supreme Court would decide. See Transcon. Gas v. Transport. Ins. Co., 953 F.2d 985, 988 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Those findings — to the extent they are

A: holding that a federal court in absence of a state supreme court pronouncement on a subject of state substantive law must determine as best it can what the highest court of the state would decide
B: holding that when applying state law this court follows the decision of the highest state court or in the absence of such a decision and any indication that the highest court would rule differently the decisions of the states intermediate courts
C: holding that when there is no ruling by the states highest court it is the duty of the federal court to determine as best it can what the highest court of the state would decide
D: holding that a federal court must decide an issue regarding the interpretation of a state law according to its anticipation of how the highest state court would hold
A.