With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". alleged that the acceleration clause had.anticompetitive effects. It may be that with more factual and expert discovery, . the Warner Chilcott. .Defendants can establish that there were no anticom-petitive effects, or that, on the second prong of the rule of reason analysis, the “challenged payment was justified by some precompetitive objective.” Nexium II, 42 F.Supp.3d at 262-63. But at this juncture, the Court is not prepared to hold that an acceleration clause like the one in the Watson Agreement may never be cognizable as a component of a complex settlement agreement amounting to a large and unjustified reverse payment. Accordingly, the acceleration clause may be considered, a least for the time being, as a component in the greater calculus. But see Actos, 2015 WL 5610752, at *16 (<HOLDING>). c. Promotional Deals Defendants contend that

A: holding that the acceleration clause was not cognizable as a large and unjustified payment
B: holding that a clause making payment by the owner an express condition precedent to payment by the general contractor to the subcontractor was enforceable
C: holding that the term reverse payment is not limited to a cash payment
D: holding claim is cognizable
A.