With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". specified how all defendants, including various borrowers, joined together as a group to perpetrate the frauds alleged in the amended complaint. Plaintiff has not pleaded any facts regarding the continuity of the structure or personnel of the “Borrower Enterprise.” Plaintiff merely asserts that for over six years defendants shared common fraudulent purposes and plans. Conclusory allegations that disparate parties were associated in fact by virtue of their involvement in the real estate industry in the 1980s are insufficient to sustain a RICO claim, absent allegations as to how the members were associated together in an ‘enterprise.’ Nor does common sense support the existence of such an ‘enterprise.’ Id. See also Cullen v. Paine Webber Group, Inc., 689 F.Supp. 269, 273 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, the amended complaint

A: holding that clients of brokerplaintiffs did not share a common purpose or association to establish a rico enterprise
B: holding that loss of substantial clients does not amount to an unconscionable injury
C: holding that attorneys and not clients choose the arguments to present
D: holding that loss of contingency fees that lawyers might have earned from other clients was not foreseeable and directly traceable to clients failure to pay amounts due under contract
A.