With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (2d Cir.2006) (upholding administrator’s determination that plaintiff was not a participating employee under the plan where “ample evidence” suggested that he had been terminated, though there was “also evidence that [he] was not terminated”), and Hobson v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 574 F.3d 75, 89-90 (2d Cir.2009) (rejecting argument that administrator erred in concluding that the claimant was not disabled based on its weighing of competing medical evaluations), with McCauley v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 551 F.3d 126, 138 (2d Cir.2008) (concluding that administrator’s “reliance on one medical report ... to the detriment of a more detailed contrary report without further investigation was unreasonable”), and Durakovic v. Bldg. Serv. 32 BJ Pension Fund, 609 F.3d 133, 140 (2d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Put differently, if the administrator has

A: holding that defendant violated section 4b when she misappropriated pool participant funds by soliciting funds for trading and then trading only a small percentage of those funds while disbursing the rest of the funds to investors herself and her family
B: holding that funds reasoning was inappropriately onesided where funds summarily dismissed a report by the claimants vocational expert which was vastly more detailed and particularized than the report on which the funds relied
C: holding that a college received federal funds where the funds were granted to its students as financial aid rather than directly to the college because the language of the section does not distinguish between direct and indirect receipt of federal funds
D: holding that an order to disgorge funds was final even though the order did not distribute the funds
B.