With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". could claim would derive from compensation that Smith Barney received but faded to share with Maalouf. The offering fell through, however, and it is undisputed that Smith Barney received no compensation. Hence, Maalouf was owed nothing. The result is similar with respect to Gazprom. The Gazprom offerings took place in 2002, years after the 1995 and 1996 Agreements had expired, and Maalouf offers no evidence to support his conclusory statements that the offerings occurred “[a]s a result, and solely by reason” of illicit contacts between Smith Barney and Gazprom while the Agreements were still in force. Accordingly, here too, Maaloufs recovery is limited to nominal damages. See, e.g., Freund v. Washington Square Press, Inc., 34 N.Y.2d 379, 357 N.Y.S.2d 857, 314 N.E.2d 419, 422 (1974) (<HOLDING>); Adams Apple Distrib. Co. v. Papeleras

A: holding that plaintiff waived the right to nominal damages in an excessive force case because nominal damages were not requested until after the verdict
B: holding that the right to nominal damages was waived in a breach of duty action when plaintiff failed to raise the issue of nominal damages until after the verdict
C: recognizing that when actual damages cannot be proved with the required certainty nominal damages alone are recoverable
D: holding that nominal damages award was appropriate where the evidence supporting the damages was speculative
C.