With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and (3) [a]ctual damages” to the plaintiff caused by the conspiracy. Nicolet, Inc. v. Nutt, 525 A.2d 146, 149-50 (Del.1987) (citation omitted). The Trustee alleges that Berkshire and Triekey conspired with Greenwich and Ocwen to harm the Debtor by allowing Greenwich to pursue its run-off scheme, allowing Ocwen to diminish the I/O Strips’ value through poor servicing, which in turn allowed Ocwen to purchase the assets at a significant discount at the June 28, 2006, Auction. Berkshire and Triekey argue that there is no evidence of an unlawful agreement among any of the parties. Without any evidence of such an agreement or actions that constitute an agreement there cannot be a conspiracy. See, e.g., Encite LLC v. Soni, No. 2476-CC, 2008 WL 2973015, at *11 (Del.Ch. Aug. 1, 2008) (<HOLDING>). Further, Berkshire and Trickey argue that

A: holding that without specific conduct or a reasonable inference of assistance or encouragement civil conspiracy allega tions are insufficiently plead
B: holding that police officers may enter a home without a warrant or consent under the emergency assistance doctrine when police have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property
C: holding that a sentencing court may consider acquitted conduct or uncharged criminal conduct
D: holding article 1802 claims only survive where the conduct alleged of is based on tortious or negligent conduct different from the conduct covered by other specific labor laws involved
A.