With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Cruden v. Bank of N.Y., 957 F.2d 961, 968 (2d Cir.1992); Feldbaum v. McCrory Corp., No. 12006, 1992 Del. Ch. LEXIS 113, at *23-*24 (Del. Ch. June 1, 1992) (applying New York law). 12 . The no action clause in that case also contained the identical "with respect to this Indenture” language present here. Feldbaum, 1992 Del. Ch. LEXIS 113 at * 17. 13 . Indeed, at least one commentator has said that the "scope of the no-action clause is rather broad," noting that it applies to "most noncontractual claims ... and to suits against defendants other than the company.” Marcel Kahan, Rethinking Corporate Bonds: The Trade-Off Between Individual and Collective Rights, 77 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1040, 1051 (2002) (citing McMahan & Co. v. Wherehouse Entm’t, Inc., 859 F.Supp. 743, 746, 749 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (<HOLDING>), aff d in part and rev’d in part, 65 F.3d 1044

A: holding parent company bound in subsequent action by res judicata effect of judgment against subsidiary
B: recognizing that third party may not recover contribution against parent where child has no cause of action against parent for negligent supervision
C: recognizing that entities holding intellectual property for parent company had no real economic substance and allowing taxation of a portion of income attributable to parent corporations business in the state
D: holding no action clause bars claims against officers of issuer underwriter of bonds and issuers parent company
D.