With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 318-19 (Bankr. M.D.Fla.1991) (awarding $250,000.00 in punitive damages where petitioners acted willfully and maliciously); In re Camelot, Inc., 25 B.R. at 869 (assessing $1,000.00 in punitive damages where petitioners “vindictively” filed their petition). Also, the court should attempt to further overriding bankruptcy policies while ensuring that the penalty is not “unduly harsh.” In re Atlas Mach, and Iron Works, Inc., 190 B.R. at 805 (quoting In re Fox Island Square, 106 B.R. 962, 968 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1989)). The court should take into account the petitioner’s financial situation in determining what amount of sanctions will further the purposes served by punitive damage awards. See TXO Prod. Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443, 462, 113 S.Ct. 2711, 125 L.Ed.2d 366 (1993) (<HOLDING>). In these cases, Petitioners chose not to

A: recognizing the financial position of the defendant as a factor in assessing a punitive damages award
B: holding that defendants wealth is a traditional and acceptable factor where calculating punitive damages
C: holding a court may not award punitive damages
D: holding tcpa is remedial statute and that statutory damages are not punitive damages
B.