With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for a violation of section 1090 is to void the affected contracts and disgorgement of monies received by the contracting party. See, e.g., Carson Redevelopment Agency v. Padilla, 140 Cal.App.4th 1323, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 881 (Cal.App.2006). Marin alleges two sets of contracts with SAP that Culver had a financial interest in: unidentified January 2007 contracts to “retain” SAP fund management and inventory consultants, AC ¶ 151; and the additional contract with Deloitte and SAP approved by the BOS on May 1,2007. AC ¶¶ 158-62. With respect to the May 1, 2007 contract, SAP argues no “interest” has been alleged when the allegations demonstrate that Culver’s employment with SAP did not begin until July 2007. See, e.g., Thomson v. Call, 38 Cal.3d 633, 645, 214 Cal.Rptr. 139, 699 P.2d 316 (1985) (<HOLDING>). However, the Amended Complaint sufficiently

A: recognizing the conflict
B: holding the existence of a possible conflict required remand for a determination of whether an actual conflict of interest existed and holding a new trial would be required if an actual conflict existed
C: holding that the court must consider the adequacy of the inquiry into the conflict the extent of the conflict and the timeliness of the motion
D: recognizing an exception to the conflict rule where the conflict arose after the award of the contract
D.