With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". given situation and in what amount. Some of these factors, such as the “estimate of foreign market value” of the goods in question, see 19 C.F.R. § 353.42(a), have nothing to do with the alleged price fixing conspiracy or any market distortion that would result. Thus, determining the degree to which the ITC actually relied on information unrelated to the alleged conspiracy would inevitably be a highly speculative inquiry, impossible to resolve with any degree of certainty. See Associated General Contractors, 459 U.S. at 543, 103 S.Ct. at 911 (“it is appropriate for § 4 purposes ‘to consider whether a claim rests at bottom on some abstract conception or speculative measure of harm’”) (citation omitted); Motor Carriers Labor Adv. Coun. v. Trucking Mgt., 711 F.Supp. 216, 230 (E.D.Pa.1989) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the fifth and final Associated General

A: holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
B: holding that plaintiffs lacked standing because the case was not ripe for adjudication
C: holding that a contractor lacked standing on the theory of reputational injury
D: holding that one class of plaintiffs lacked standing where damage theory was speculative abstract and impractical
D.