With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on the part of the outside directors than the fact that said directors are being ‘controlled’ by defendant.” Id. Third, while well-compensated membership on multiple boards within a fund complex is one factor in the control crucible, most courts have concluded that it is not sufficient evidence by itself to rebut the statutory presumption. See id. at 258-59 (rejecting a control claim where the complaint alleged service by “independent directors” on twenty-one boards with compensation ranging from $140,000 to $160,000); Krantz v. Prudential Invs. Fund Management LLC, 77 F.Supp.2d 559, 563 (D.N.J.1999) (rejecting a claim that overlapping service on between 15 and 38 boards with an average compensation of $90,000 constituted control); Langner v. Brown, 913 F.Supp. 260, 266 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (<HOLDING>); Olesh v. Dreyfus Corp., No. CV-94-1664, 1995

A: holding that the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence is insufficient to create a dispute of fact that is genuine
B: holding that the mere failure to investigate does not constitute suppression of the evidence
C: holding danger was not so obvious to invitee as to relieve defendant of liability as a matter of law
D: holding that jjust as the mere receipt of director fees does not constitute a disqualifying interest as a matter of law so too are crossdirectorships insufficient to create interests
D.