With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that granting relief in its case will not have been a “futile gesture.” Boyd v. Bulala, 905 F.2d 764, 769 (4th Cir.1990). Essentially, the law “requires a proffer of evidence which would permit a finding for the [moving] party or which would establish a valid counterclaim.” Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc. v. Fodor Contracting Corp., 843 F.2d 808, 812 (4th Cir.1988). To prove a meritorious claim or defense, the movant need not show an actual likelihood of success at trial but must make allegations that, if established at trial, would constitute a valid claim or defense. See 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 60.24[2] (3d ed.1999). See, e.g., Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local 59 v. Superline Transp. Co., 953 F.2d 17, 21 (1st Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). For purposes of gauging the movant’s claim or

A: holding that in class action the claim or defense of the representative party must be typical of the claim or defense of each member of the class
B: holding that regardless of other factors as to harms a movants likelihood of success must carry at least a fair chance of success on the merits in order to warrant interim relief internal quotation omitted
C: holding that under the sliding scale approach a petitioner had made a sufficiently strong showing of likely success on the merits where he presented a case which raises serious legal questions or has a reasonable probability or fair prospect of success
D: holding that although the movant  need not establish  an ironclad claim or defense which will guarantee success at trial it must at least establish that it possesses a potentially meritorious claim or defense which if proven will bring success in its wake
D.