With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". investment reason for not establishing the short portfolio (e.g., reducing interest payments to Note-holders). Alternatively, it could have been merely an oversight that did not amount to gross negligence. But although this allegation is insufficient by itself, it can be aggregated with the other allegations described above. Taking the allegations as a whole and drawing all reasonable inferences in Bayerische’s favor, we conclude that Bayerische has sufficiently alleged facts plausibly suggesting Aladdin abandoned its role to manage the Reference Portfolio in favor of the Noteholders. Cf. Assured Guar. (UK) Ltd. v. J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgmt. Inc., 80 A.D.3d 293, 304-05, 915 N.Y.S.2d 7 (1st Dep’t 2010), aff'd on other grounds, 18 N.Y.3d 341, 939 N.Y.S.2d 274, 962 N.E.2d 765 (2011) (<HOLDING>). After discovery, the facts that come to light

A: holding that making a nonfrivolous allegation is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
B: holding as sufficient to survive motion to dismiss plaintiffs claim for gross negligence alleging that jp morgan knowingly invested in risky mortgagebacked securities despite stated investment goal of high level of safety of capital and that jp morgan favored other client over plaintiff in so investing
C: holding that the bare assertion that a dismissal without prejudice was favorable to the plaintiff was insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss
D: holding that complaint alleging a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his civil rights cannot survive motion to dismiss based on conclusory allegations of conspiracy which are not supported by references to material facts
B.