With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". no “final adjudication of the action” within the meaning of the PSLRA because the district court “impliedly determined that [he] lacked statutory standing under the Exchange Act and prudential standing under [Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 728, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975) ],” Appellants’ Br. at 27, this argument is not supported by the record. Even assuming arguendo that a dismissal for lack of standing would not constitute a final adjudication for purposes of the PSLRA, the district court’s decision makes clear that it is an adjudication of the merits (ie., the timeliness) of Libaire’s claims, not a determination of whether he had standing to bring suit. See generally Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 228, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, it is undisputed that Libaire is a

A: holding that under federal law the dismissal of a claim as timebarred is adjudication of merits for purposes of res judicata
B: holding that application of res judicata requires that a prior adjudication include a ruling on the merits
C: holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata
D: holding that an unappealed order is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes
A.