With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". if a statute requires an authorization or limitation to be set forth in the certificate of incorporation, an action setting it forth in the bylaws will be insufficient); Jones v. Wallace, 291 Or. 11, 628 P.2d 388, 391 (1981) (invalidating, pursuant to the Oregon Business Corporation Act, O.R.S. 57.165, a bylaw amendment altering the corporation’s shareholder-quorum requirement when no such amendment was made to the entity’s articles of incorporation). Allowing the Board to change the shareholder-quorum requirement through a bylaw amendment would effectively reduce the rights of shareholders without their consent or participation. We find such a result to run contrary to the Legislature’s intent in adopting the Act. See Vergopia v. Shaker, 191 N.J. 217, 235-36, 922 A.2d 1238 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we reverse the motion judge’s

A: holding only that although a party cannot interfere with its own contract a supervisor who is not an officer of a plaintiffs employer is not a party to the plaintiffs employment contract and therefore can interfere with it
B: holding a shareholders cause of action accrued for statute of limitations purposes when shareholders and directors of a company asserted a right to stock which was hostile to the plaintiffs claim to the stock
C: holding that a board of directors cannot create bylaws that will substantially interfere with the statutory rights given to shareholders
D: recognizing privilege for corporate officers directors and shareholders to influence the actions of their corporation
C.