With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". challenge the computation of the compensatory damages. 7 . Although some of these events did take place prior to the plan’s confirmation, the claims are not barred by res judicata because the breaches ' of fiduciary duty did not occur until well afterward. The pre-confirmation events are looked at only for background, pattern of activity, and for evidence of motive. See n.4, supra. 8 . We also find that the punitive damages were proportional to the compensatory damages, léss than a 2 to 1 ratio, and that there is therefore no need to discuss a possible conflict between Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 1032, 113 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991) (suggesting that punitive damages disproportionate to compensatory damages may violate due process), and Kirkbride, 555 A.2d at 803 (<HOLDING>). See Tunis Bros. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 952

A: holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages
B: holding that punitive damages do not need to be proportional to compensatory damages
C: holding that punitive damages are available in an intentional discrimination action even if the jury does not assess compensatory damages
D: holding compensatory and punitive damages constitute legal remedies
B.