With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the burden of proving the second element identified in Farmers’, specifically, that the claimant did not initiate the fight. See Farmers’, 144 Va. at 104, 131 S.E. at 241. Thus, the issue of whether the claimant initiated the fight is not an affirmative defense, but rather, an “integral part of the proximate causation analysis.” Nat’l Mkt. Share, Inc. v. Sterling Nat’l Bank, 392 F.3d 520, 527 (2d Cir.2004); see also E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. McCain, 414 F.2d 369, 374 (5th Cir.1969) (“The theory of new and independent cause is not an affirmative defense; it is but an element to be considered by the jury in considering the existence or non-existence of proximate cause.” (internal quotations omitted)); Resolution Trust Corp. v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 845 F.Supp. 621, 625 (N.D.Ill.1994) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we conclude that the commission

A: holding a plaintiff cannot assert a violation of the ecoa as an affirmative defense
B: holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense
C: holding that the issue of whether the plaintiffs claim was barred by an intervening cause was not an affirmative defense but merely an assertion that the plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of its claim
D: holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim
C.