With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". reports created by Citco NV. 45 .See Def. Mem. at 10. 46 . Indeed, the same reasoning that the court used in LaSalle — upon which plaintiffs rely— applies here. See 951 F.Supp. at 1093. In LaSalle, the court found that defendant, a bond rating company, could nevertheless be liable to plaintiffs with whom defendant had no contact. See id. at 1093-94. The court reasoned that "[k]nowledge of the identity of each particular plaintiff is not necessary, however, if the defendant's representation is designed to target a 'select group of qualified investors' rather than 'the public at large.’ " See id. at 1093 (quoting Schwartz v. Michaels, No. 91 Civ. 3538, 1992 WL 184527, at *32 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 1992)). 47 . See Def. Mem. at 2. 48 . See id. at 2-3; Pension Committee, 2007 WL 528703, at *6 (<HOLDING>). 49 . See Def. Mem. at 5-6. 50 . See Def.

A: holding that claims brought under section 10b of the securities exchange act and rico claims were arbitrable
B: holding that the fraudbased common law claims against the citco defendants fail for the same reason that the section 10b claims fail
C: recognizing that withholding of removal claims must fail if petitioner is unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim and the claims are based on the same factual predicate
D: holding that where summary judgment is granted on the underlying tort claims a conspiracy claim must also fail
B.