With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". shareholders. The Supreme Court concluded that liability under Rule 10b-5 was sufficiently expansive to cover investors where a fraud or deceit can be practiced on one party with resultant harm to another person or group of persons. 521 U.S. at 656, 117 S.Ct. 2199. The Financial Institutions call Lead Plaintiff’s interpretation of O'Hagan a "gross misreading,” leading to a result that is contrary to the Fifth Circuit's ruling in this action. O’Hagan involved an appeal of a criminal conviction for insider trading, not imposition of civil liability in a private action under § 10(b). The Supreme Court did not address the reliance element at all because, unlike in a private cause of action, it does not apply to criminal cases. See, e.g., U.S. v. Haddy, 134 F.3d 542, 549 (3d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 827, 119 S.Ct. 75, 142

A: holding that reliance is not an element of the crime of stock manipulation
B: holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense
C: holding that reliance is not an element to be proven under securities fraud in indiana
D: holding that reliance is not a required element of securities fraud in a state enforcement action in idaho
A.