With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". creating reasons for doubt. Indeed, there was no evidence at all that the directors were on notice of the violation at issue, which arose from a failure to register the funds’ securities under state Blue Sky laws, other than the SEC’s view that “[sjophisticated professionals like Stead-man might be assumed to have come across [such] information ... at some point during” their careers. Id. Graham, by contrast, was not simply a professional who should have known better. She was a professional who was aware of her customer’s financial difficulties, aware that he was trading in a suspicious and economically irrational manner, and aware that he was trying to circumvent restrictions that had been placed on his account — yet she assisted him nonetheless. Cf. Wonsover, 205 F.3d at 411, 415 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reject Graham’s reliance

A: holding in light of several red flags  that brokers reliance on approval of firm and its lawyers did not negate finding that he acted willfully
B: holding that section 91964 requires vehicles to have two constantly illuminated tail lamps that emit red light that a rearmounted brakeonly red light does not satisfy this requirement and stop of vehicle was justified where one of vehicles tail lamps was burned out
C: holding that appellants complaint on appeal that the environment was coercive did not change the fact that he was not in custody when he voluntarily went to the police station was told several times he could leave and did leave after the interrogation
D: holding that insurance defense law firm did not have nearpermanent relationship with its clients
A.