With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The supreme court conveyed its view on a very similar set of facts: Once a customer has parted with his money, he is dependent upon the financial responsibility, business ability, integrity, expertise and market advice of appellant and, unknown to him, third parties who participate in appellant’s commodity trading. It is the essential managerial efforts of those other than the investor which affect the failure or success of the enterprise. Investors are not required to, and they do not, exert any significant efforts in order to make a profit on their investment. For all practical purposes, the critical managerial decisions affecting the investor’s funds are solely within the control of the appellant. Searsy, 560 S.W.2d at Financial Concepts, Inc., 196 F.3d 1195, 1201 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Infinity

A: holding that whether the contract was abandoned by movant was inextricably tied up with the merits of the underlying arbitrable dispute regarding the adequacy of the movants contract performance
B: holding that the standard for permanent injunction is the same as that for preliminary injunction with the one exception being that the plaintiff must show actual success on the merits rather than likelihood of success
C: holding investment program tied to success of appellants ponzi scheme was investment contract
D: holding that regardless of other factors as to harms a movants likelihood of success must carry at least a fair chance of success on the merits in order to warrant interim relief internal quotation omitted
C.