With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Local 317 v. Lorillard Corp., supra, 448 F.2d at 958-59. Finally, defendants have failed to indicate how being denied “uncontrolled access” to the books and records of accounts of Imperial and the various Poland companies, which were turned over to APL, is in any way prejudicial to them. Thus, they have not alleged that they would not have access to those records or that any of those records are missing. Inasmuch as this Court concludes that the two essential elements of laches are missing in the instant case, it need not decide whether the defense of laches would otherwise be available in an action at law under Rule 10b-5. Compare Royal Air Properties, Inc. v. Smith, 312 F.2d 210, 214 (9th Cir. 1962) (upholding availability of defense) with Myzel v. Fields, supra, 386 F.2d at 742 (<HOLDING>); cf. Tobacco and Allied Stocks, Inc. v.

A: holding that district court could not decide after jury returned verdict to treat jury verdict as advisory on issue not triable of right by jury but which was tried by consent of parties to nonadvisory jury
B: holding laches not applicable in action at law tried to a jury
C: holding that the penalty is applicable
D: holding that the applicable rate is that in existence at the time of judgment
B.