With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". other remedy adequately protects the petitioner’s interest. See In re von Bulow (von Bulow ex rel. Auersperg v. von Bulow), 828 F.2d 94, 98 (2d Cir.1987). Such a situation exists where the time required for the ordinary appeals process would deprive the petitioner of the right it claims (here, to re-auction the Licenses on the announced date, July 26, 2000). See In re King World Productions, 898 F.2d 56, 58-59 (6th Cir.1990) (listing among the factors to be considered when determining the propriety of mandamus whether “[t]he petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal,” as well as whether “[t]he district court’s order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules”); cf. In re Cooper, 971 F.2d 640, 641 (11th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). This Court will grant a mandamus petition

A: holding that adequate alternative state remedy must provide the possibility of relief under the circumstances
B: holding that where plaintiffs had an alternative remedy the court would not substitute its judgment for that of congress by creating an implied right of action
C: holding one example of a claim is a right to an equitable remedy that can be satisfied by an alternative right to payment
D: holding an alternative remedy to be inadequate where it would have caused great delay in the vindication of the petitioners rights
D.