With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not apply where a defendant knew that its statement was false when made”). 87 . Halperin v. eBanker USA.com, Inc., 295 F.3d 352, 357 (2d Cir.2002). 88 . See Ganino v. Citizens Utils. Co., 228 F.3d 154, 159 (2d Cir.2000) ("The truth-on-the-market defense is intensely fact-specific and is rarely an appropriate basis for dismissing a § 10(b) complaint for failure to plead materiality.”). 89 . See In re NTL, Inc. Sec. Litig., 347 F.Supp.2d 15, 34 (S.D.N.Y.2004) ("Vague expressions of optimism, or puffery, are insufficient to support a claim for securities fraud.”). 90 . See Caiafa v. Sea Containers, Ltd., 525 F.Supp.2d 398, 410-411 (S.D.N.Y.2007). 91 . ATSI, 493 F.3d at 99 (citing Ganino, 228 F.3d at 168-69). Accord In re Scottish Re Group Sec. Litig., 524 F.Supp.2d 370, 398 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (<HOLDING>); In re eSpeed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 457 F.Supp.2d

A: holding that an officers sox certification alone is not probative of scienter rather the plaintiff must allege facts showing the officer was severely reckless in certifying the accuracy of the financial statements
B: holding that scienter had not adequately been pled where the plaintiffs provided none of the required facts underlying the complaints allegations as to the information that was supposedly available to the individual defendants
C: holding that plaintiffs adequately pleaded scienter because the allegations supported the inference that the company and the officers were at least reckless in not knowing that the financial statements were false and in failing to disclose internal control weaknesses
D: holding that even if defendants knew that the company had inventory problems  that fact standing alone does not show that defendants knew that the statements in their prospectus or other representations were materially false or misleading at the time the material statements were made
C.