With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Sabin Willett, The Shallows of Deepening Insolvency, 60 Bus. Law. 549, 549 (2005) ("Whether deepening insolvency is a cause of action or merely a damage theory remains ... murky[.]”). 192 . 267 F.3d 340 (3d Cir.2001). 193 . Id. at 344. 194 . Id. at 346, 352. 195 . Ultimately, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint, however, concluding that it was barred by the doctrine of in pari delicto. One district court has followed this opinion and concluded that there is a separate cause of action for deepening insolvency in Pennsylvania. See In re CITX Corp. Inc., 2005 WL 1388963 *10 (E.D.Pa. Jun.7, 2005). 196 . Bondi v. Citigroup, Inc., 2005 WL 975856 (N.J.Super.Ct. Feb. 28, 2005); see also In re Global Serv. Grp. LLC, 316 B.R. 451, 457-59 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2004) (<HOLDING>). 197 . Id. *21. 198 . Coroles v. Sabey, 79

A: holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york
B: holding that new york law did not preclude an arbitrators award of punitive damages despite a new york choice of law provision because there was no indication in the contract that the parties intended to limit their remedies in arbitration
C: holding that new york recognizes deepening insolvency only as a theory of damages and not as an independent tort
D: holding that outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action
C.