With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was both foreseeable and certain. See American Capital II, 59 Fed. Cl. at 575-76; American Capital III, 63 Fed. Cl. at 712-13. The Government argues that “the Court appears to have adopted an approach that equates the causation requirement with the foreseeability requirement.” 2/25/05 Gov’t Mot. to Reconsider at 19 (citing American Capital III, 63 Fed.Cl. at 712) (quoting Arthur L. Corbin, Corbin On Contracts §§ 1006, 1007 at 60-61 (interim ed. 2002) (“Our only test of ‘causation,’ ... is foreseeability!.]”)). The Government thus concludes that “to the extent the Court in the present case collapsed the causation analysis into its foreseeability analysis, that approach is incompatible with CalFed.” 2/25/05 Gov’t Mot. to Reconsider at 20. The Gove 3 F.3d 1426, 1429 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Crocker v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 826

A: holding that officers directors and employees of a corporation may become personally liable under  1981
B: holding that professional corporation was not necessary party where plaintiff asserts claims that accrue to plaintiff personally
C: holding that where plaintiff reata failed to demonstrate waiver of citys immunity from liability under tort claims act plaintiffs claims were properly dismissed and plaintiff was not entitled to replead
D: holding officer personally liable because he agreed to personally guarantee payment on an account
B.