With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ECA & Local 134 IBEW Joint Pension Trust of Chi. v. JP Morgan Chase Co., 553 F.3d 187, 197 (2d Cir.2009) (hereinafter “ECA”) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Certain types of statements are generally not materially misleading. “Puffery” is one such type. Puffery is an optimistic statement that is so vague, broad, and non-specific that a reasonable investor would not rely on it, thereby rendering it immaterial as a matter of law. See id. at 206. However, the mere fact that a statement uses conclusory, indefinite, and unverifiable terms, rather than expressing a reason in dollars and cents, does not compel a conclusion that it is immaterial as a matter of law. Va. Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg, 501 U.S. 1083, 1093-94, 111 S.Ct. 2749, 115 L.Ed.2d 929 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Novak, 216 F.3d at 315 (statements that

A: holding that statement that merger would give shareholders high value for their shares could be deemed material and noting that such conclusory terms in a commercial context are reasonably understood to rest on a factual basis that justifies them as accurate the absence of which renders them misleading
B: holding minority shareholders to be forced sellers for the purpose of 10b because corporation forced shareholders to sell their shares for cash or else realize no value from the stock
C: holding that shareholders had failed to maintain their status as shareholders by selling their shares after they had filed their complaint and therefore had lost standing to maintain a derivative suit
D: holding that conclusory statements without factual support are of no value to the court when deciding a summary judgment motion
A.