With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Dkt. 29-1, Decl. of Katherine A. Rykken ISO Defs.’ MTD [“Rykken Decl.”] Exh. 4, [safe harbor provision in Form 8-K for May 26, 2011 earnings call]). The same is true for Plaintiffs’ “new” statement by Defendant Plochocki that “all four units remain on target,” made at the July 28, 2011 earnings call. (Pis.’ Mot. at 12; see Rykken Decl. Exh. 6 [safe harbor provision in Form 8-K for July 28, 2011 earnings call].) Plaintiffs’ already-presented arguments regarding the sufficiency of the cautionary language are equally unavailing. According to Plaintiffs’ own cited case, the Seventh Circuit directly refutes Plaintiffs’ contention that the risk factors must “warn of risks that ... actually materialized.” (Pis.’ Mot. at 7, 11); see Asher v. Baxter Int’l Inc., 377 F.3d 727, 730 (7th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Rather, the cautionary statement need only

A: holding that a case is not moot so long as the court can fashion some form of meaningful relief for the injured party
B: holding that securities law does not demand prescience and as long as the defendant reveals the principal risks the fact that some other event caused problems cannot be dispositive
C: holding a summary calendar does not violate due process as long as defendant is able to properly present issues on appeal
D: recognizing that a reviewing court should not reconsider credibility determinations made by the alj as long as they find some support in the record
B.