With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The Court now turns to whether testimony regarding Non-Consequential Damages Parties’ hedging strategies is prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. As discussed above, the threshold to exclude relevant evi dence on Rule 403 grounds is high. While the Court appreciates the Bondholders’ concern regarding the risk that the jury may be misled to decide the case based on the actions of the Non-Consequential Damages Parties rather than the Consequential Damages Parties, the Court believes, at this time, that the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury does not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence and can be alleviated by way of a limiting jury instruction. See Starter Corp. v. Converse, Inc., 170 F.3d 286, 294 (2d Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Vereen, No. 3:99CR 279, 2000

A: holding in a criminal context that the probative value of evidence of other crimes is not substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice where the court will give a limiting jury charge
B: holding potential for unfair prejudice related to evidentiary issue dispelled by the circuit courts limiting instruction to the jury
C: holding that the probative value of contested evidence far outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice where any potential unfair prejudice was cured by a limiting jury instruction
D: recognizing that a limiting instruction has the potential to cure any prejudice from the erroneous admission of evidence
C.