With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". seek rescission of the UPAs under 15 U.S.C. § 1709(a) or under 15 U.S.C. § 1709(b). More specifically, the magistrate judge found that rescission is available under § 1709(a), which empowers district courts to award all “fair, just, and equitable” relief insofar as it would be available under Virginia law, which law requires a showing that violations (i) were substantial, and (ii) prejudiced the plaintiff. Si 430, 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990) (“The elements of, and the defenses to, a federal cause of action are defined by federal law.”). And where, as here, the statutory provisions in issue do not specify the available remedies, federal common law governs the analysis. See Franklin, 503 U.S. at 60, 112 S.Ct. 1028; Griggs v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 385 F.3d 440, 447 n. 4 (4th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). This conclusion is further supported by the

A: holding that federal law governs remedies available under title ix
B: holding that federal law governs res judicata effect of an earlier federal judgment based on federal law
C: holding that federal common law governs equitable remedies available under erisa
D: recognizing fraud in the inducement as defense under federal common law interpreting erisa
C.