With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". were parties to an agreement to restrain trade. First, GUA maintains that by obtaining exclusive dealing contracts with customers that GUA had contacted and by entering into a new and more favorable purchase agreement with Southern Marketing, Alagasco collaborated with Southern to foreclose any competition. In addition, GUA claims that Alagasco’s rate reduction to potential GUA customers following Southern’s denial of the taps, was not a manifestation of Alagasco’s desire to compete with companies such as GUA. Instead, Alagasco was “hedging its bets”, since Alagasco did not completely trust Southern. Plaintiffs Response at 5. GUA also asserts that the conspiratorial nature of Southern and Alagasco’s conduct is manifested through “conscious parallelism.” See American Tobacco Co., supra, (<HOLDING>) GUA recognizes that to prevail with this

A: holding that coverage could not be premised upon theories of negligence in the underlying complaint where based upon numerous acts of molestation that could not be deemed negligent acts
B: holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges
C: holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators
D: holding that the existence of a conspiracy could be premised upon parallel pricing in competitive bidding behavior
D.