With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of its recent decision in F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2359, 159 L.Ed.2d 226 (2004) (“Empagran”). See Bank Austria v. Sniado, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2870, 2871, 159 L.Ed.2d 774 (2004). We then directed the parties to submit supplemental letter briefs on the issue of whether Empagran required a different result. The parties have briefed the issue, and after consideration of their arguments, we vacate our previous deci emanded for further pretrial proceedings based on this Court’s intervening decision in Kruman v. Christie’s Int’l PLC, 284 F.3d 384 (2d Cir.2002), which held that the jurisdictional requirement of § 6a(2) was satisfied where the plaintiff alleged that an anti-competitive effect on domestic commerce gave rise to a claim in general. Id. at 400 (<HOLDING>). Subsequently, the Supreme Court decided

A: holding when ordinance language is clear courts must give language its plain meaning
B: recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous  the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect
C: holding that courts must generally give effect to the plain meaning of a statute because that is the best evidence of the legislatures intent
D: holding that the plain meaning of the statutory language a claim refutes the defendants argument that plaintiff must allege that the anticompetitive effect gives rise to his claim emphasis added
D.