With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". fact that Keystone was not entitled to the award of a license is completely irrelevant to the determination of whether it sustained an injury. The germane fact alleged in the amended complaint is that the PGCB discriminated against Keystone because of its affiliation with Atlantic City casinos. In other words, Keystone alleges that it was denied the ability to compete against other entities on equal terms for the Category 2 licenses because of that affiliation. Contrary to the assertions of the Board Defendants, per the dictates of Associated General, this satisfies the “injury prong” of the standing requirement relative to its claims for past harms. See also Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Michigan Gaming Control Board, 172 F.3d 397, 404-05 (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The Board Defendants also challenge the

A: holding that an administrator was not in substantial compliance with  1133 where the initial denial notice omitted one of the grounds later relied on for the denial of benefits
B: holding that state court chancellors denial of leave to amend and the failure of plaintiffs to appeal the denial resulted in a final judgment on the issue and precluded relitigation of the matter in federal court
C: holding that plaintiffs injury was not the denial of a gaming license but the denial of the ability to compete on equal footing with other entities vying for the licenses
D: holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself
C.