With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". General has been empowered to act.”). 98 . Eternity Global Master Fund Ltd., 375 F.3d at 177 (quotation marks omitted). 99 . Berman v. Sugo LLC, 580 F.Supp.2d 191, 202 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (quotation marks omitted). 100 . Contractual Obligation Prods., LLC v. AMC Networks, Inc., No. 04 Civ. 2867, 2006 WL 6217754, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2006) (citing Weiss v. La Suisse, 69 F.Supp.2d 449, 462 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)). 101 . Subaru Distribs. Corp. v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 425 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir.2005) (citing State of Cal. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Shearman & Sterling, 95 N.Y.2d 427, 434-35, 718 N.Y.S.2d 256, 741 N.E.2d 101 (2000)). 102 . See id. 103 . Restatement (2d) Contracts § 302. 10 . 3. 109 . See Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 474, 123 S.Ct. 1655, 155 L.Ed.2d 643 (2003) (<HOLDING>); Filler v. Hanvit Bank, 378 F.3d 213, 217-20

A: holding that a mere statement that the appellant is a prevailing party satisfies eligibility requirement for jurisdictional purposes
B: holding gingles establishes a numerical majority requirement for all section 2 claims
C: holding that only direct ownership of a majority of shares by the foreign state satisfies the statutory requirement outlined in section 1603
D: holding that handcuffing satisfies this requirement
C.