With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". arguments or cites no new authority that raises the specter of a reversal on appeal. Here, the Court is unconvinced that the character of the potential injuries described in Zurich’s motion and reply is truly irreparable so as to justify the extraordinary relief sought. In its motion, Zurich states that “if the [Memorandum Opinion and] Order is not stayed pending appeal, LCC might distribute funds held in reserve that would be used to satisfy Zurich’s administrative claim” (Doc. # 47 at p. 8). Zurich’s claim for administrative expense priority status, at its core, is one for monetary recovery. The monetary harm that Zurich would allegedly suffer if the stay was denied does not constitute irreparable harm. See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90-91, 94 S.Ct. 987, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974) (<HOLDING>). In this case, it is undisputed that the

A: holding that the potential loss of valuable business may constitute irreparable harm
B: holding damages do not constitute other equitable relief
C: holding that loss of customers and resulting injury to goodwill can constitute irreparable harm that is not compensable by an award of money damages
D: holding that monetary damages do not generally constitute irreparable harm
D.