With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in no event will [the damage claimants] seek to enforce said excess judgment or recovery insofar as same may expose the [vessel owners] to liability in excess of [the limitation fund] pending the adjudication of Limitation Liability in the District Court. Id. at 759. Even though none of the vessel owner’s co-defendants entered stipulations, the court held the above-outlined stipulation to be sufficient to protect the vessel owners from excess liability at the hands of third parties. Id. Afterwards, the court permitted the damage claimants to proceed against the vessel owner in state court. Id. Since In re Complaint of Dammers, the Fifth Circuit has upheld stipulations that mirror the stipulation approved above. See In re Two “R” Drilling Co., Inc., 943 F.2d 576, 578 (5th Cir.1991)(<HOLDING>); see also,; Kattelman v. Otis Eng’g Corp., 696

A: recognizing that a principal may limit the authority of its agent and such limitation will be binding on a third party who is aware of the limitation
B: holding that limitation on cost is prospective and will not be retroactively applied when contractor may stop work prior to incurring costs above funding limitation
C: holding that even in a multiple claimant situation a court can lift the stay and allow state court suits if the claimants enter a stipulation that the court determines will adequately protect the limitation plaintiff under the limitation act including a stipulation that will protect the limitation plaintiff against third party indemnification claims
D: holding that as to the scope of court review substantial evidence is a stringent limitation
C.