With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". impose a duplicative litigation burden on the defendants and potentially give plaintiffs a duplicative source of recovery. However, to broadly preempt private causes of action grants the Attorney General nearly exclusive and final say as to whether the perpetrators of fraudulent securities schemes are held liable under New York law. If the Attorney General chooses not to prosecute or investigates and declines to proceed, remedies for defrauded investors are severely limited and private plaintiffs are left only with common law fraud litigation as a remedy. No other remedies are available, including causes of action with less stringent requirements such as simple negligence or breach of fiduciary duty. See Gabriel Capital, L.P. v. Natwest Fin., Inc., 137 F.Supp.2d 251, 266 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). But there is no convincing

A: holding that plaintiffs negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims are not independent of the breach of contract claim and summary judgment is warranted on these claims
B: holding that because negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims are covered by the martin act these claims must be dismissed
C: holding that in the context of the federal tort claims act claims dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds are not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but for the existence of a defense
D: holding that under texas law limited partner could not bring breach of fiduciary duty claims without the partnership because the partners claims would be indirect and duplicative of the partnerships claims
B.