With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". management team, suggesting that GECC understood itself to be the true owner of the shares despite the nominal vesting of title in Gaffney, Brooks, and Villa. We agree with the Ninth Circuit that a prerequisite for lender liability is that whatever responsibility the lender may have assumed for the borrower’s business, such responsibility must have been for the “ordinary operation” of the business. Thus, as in bankruptcy law, the lender may not be hable under WARN for “winding up” or foreclosure activities not taken as part of an effort to operate the business in the “normal commercial sense,” Weslock, 66 F.3d at 245, even if, as a result of the foreclosure, the lender “owns” the shares for some period of time. Cf. In re United Healthcare System, Inc., 200 F.3d 170, 179 (3d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). However, GECC’s own documents demonstrate

A: holding that puffing does not give rise to fraud liability under mississippi law
B: holding duty to warn exists only if public entity makes assurances that could give rise to justifiable reliance
C: holding that a fiduciarys winding up activities in the course of a companys liquidation pursuant to a bankruptcy fifing cannot give rise to warn act liability
D: holding that a violation of a state statute regarding the swearing of criminal complaints does not give rise to constitutional liability
C.