With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and loan officers who were allegedly negligent in approving bad loans; it does not involve the same kind of intentional and abhorrent conduct present in Bouterie. Therefore, we will not extend the doctrine beyond the four traditional categories in this case. 18 . See, e.g., Palowsky v. Premier Bancorp, Inc., 597 So.2d 543, 545 (La.Ct.App.1992) (noting that "a shareholder may ... sue to recover losses to a corporation resulting from mismanagement and breaches of fiduciary duties [on the part of its directors] secondarily through a shareholder's derivative suit.”). 19 . See Rogers, 42 F.3d at 295 (stating that the third category “is applied in situations involving concealment, fraud, misrepresentation and other ill practices.”); Fontenot v. ABC Ins. Co., 674 So.2d 960, 963 (La.1996) (<HOLDING>). 20 . Because we hold that contra non valentem

A: holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud
B: holding that a north carolina rule requiring an expert certification in a medical malpractice case applied in a federal tort claims act case sounding in medical malpractice brought in federal court
C: recognizing differing elements and standard of proof between medical malpractice and fraud
D: holding in a medical malpractice case that to trigger application of the third category a physicians conduct must rise to the level of concealment misrepresentation fraud or ill practices
D.