With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Funding, 15 Cl.Ct. at 502. In the case sub judice, the surety assignee declined to file suit against the government as a result of the government’s failure to pay the proper party. 11 . Each of the additional cases plaintiffs rely upon in their Response to Defendant's First Motion to Dismiss involved a surety that filed suit against the government based on the doctrine of equitable subrogation. Pearlman, 371 U.S. at 141-42, 83 S.Ct. 232 (involving a surety that sued the government pursuant to equitable sub-rogation when the surety financed a project to completion after default by the prime contractor); Prairie State, 164 U.S. at 231-32, 17 S.Ct. 142 (determining that a surety was entitled to assert equitable subrogation against the government); Aetna Cas. & Sur., 845 F.2d at 974-76 (<HOLDING>); Balboa, 775 F.2d at 1162-63 (ruling that a

A: holding that there is no privity of contract between the government and a surety since the government is not a party to the agreement between the surety and the contractor the government never undertakes an obligation to the surety
B: holding that a performance bond surety was allowed to sue the government based on the doctrine of equitable subrogation
C: holding that taxable costs included only the premium on a surety bond posted on appeal not the fees paid for letters of credit to secure the bond where the state statute and court rule only specifically allowed for premium on any surety bond
D: holding that doctrine of impossibility of performance did not apply so as to entitle surety to partial remission of forfeited bond
B.