Which of the Following Was the Result in the Case

Which of the following was the result in the case in the text involving a no-hand pill under Delaware law?

A) That as a matter of law the pill was valid as a response to a takeover bid regardless of whether independent proof existed that the directors acted reasonably.
B) That the pill was valid because the directors established, based upon reliable expert testimony, that the hostile takeover bid presented a dangerous threat to the continuation of the company.
C) That the pill, which had to be redeemed within one month of a takeover bid or else be allowed to remain in place, was invalid because it impermissibly circumscribed the board's statutory power to manage the business affairs of the company and the directors' ability to fulfill their fiduciary duties.
D) That the pill, which could not be redeemed for six months following a takeover, was invalid because it impermissibly circumscribed the board's statutory power to manage the business affairs of the company and the directors' ability to fulfill their fiduciary duties.