With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". J.). Accordingly, the Court only discusses those facts that are essential to the resolution of the instant motion. The case arises out of Aristocrat’s issuance of US$130,000,000 of 5% convertible bonds, due May 2006, to qualified institutional buyers. Aristocrat filed this suit as a declaratory action on December 20, 2004, alleging that but for a scrivener’s error, Aristocrat would have been able to redeem the bonds on November 22, 2004, its notice and call would have been effective on December 20, 2004, and Aristocrat would have terminated the Bondholders’ right to convert. In its August 12, 2005, Opinion and Order, this Court found that Aristocrat’s December 20, 2004, communication did not constitute an effective call for redemption, and the Bondh 6 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80055, at *10-11 (<HOLDING>). The Court, however, denied the Bondholders’

A: holding to that effect with respect to rule 64
B: holding that aristocrat is in breach with respect to qvt fund lp
C: holding that aristocrat is in breach with respect to deutsche bank ag london branch
D: holding the same with respect to an apartment
B.