With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ERISA penalties. Plaintiff has alleged that he mailed two requests for plan information to the plan administrator’s counsel which were largely ignored; these facts can be used to show that the administrator acted in bad faith. See Lacoparra, 982 F.Supp. at 229. Plaintiffs complaint also indicates that PDK has offered no explanation for why it did not timely supply plaintiff with a copy of the •retirement plan, another factor that supports a finding of bad faith. See Pagovich, 865 F.Supp. at 138. Plaintiff also offered facts indicating that he suffered prejudice: he alleged that he was not provided with plan information until after he filed an ERISA claim, see Lacoparra, 982 F.Supp. at 229, and that the plan administrator delayed providing him with plan information for 445 days. See id. (<HOLDING>). These facts are sufficient to establish that

A: holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice
B: recognizing that proof of extreme delay establishes prejudice
C: holding that when determining whether a delay in prosecution violates a defendants right to a speedy trial courts must consider the length of the delay the reason for the delay whether the defendant asserted his rights and the resulting prejudice to the defendant
D: holding that prejudice is only presumed if there is proof of an actual conflict of interest
B.