With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". points to an avalanche of ad verse publicity about Citigroup’s financial condition prior to December 8', 2008. 8 . The Citi I plaintiffs’ motion to amend consisted of a footnote at the end of their opposition brief in which they "respectfully requested] leave to amend” without specifying any- new facts that they would allege. See Citi I Pl.’s Mem. in Opp. to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, at 59 n. 77 (ECF No. 87). Neither Judge Stein nor the Court of Appeals took note of that request. ' 9 . The plaintiffs also argue that their prudence claim is timely because the defendants had a "continuing obligation” to review the Plans' assets throughout the course of the class period, which extended past December 2008. See Bona v. Barasch, No. 01cv2289, 2003 WL 1395932, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2003) (<HOLDING>). However, the plaintiffs cannot rely on the

A: holding that the defendants had a continuing duty to review investments and that the action was not barred to the extent breaches occurred within six years of filing the complaint
B: holding that to the extent plaintiffs present action is based on conduct subsequent to the original action it is not barred by the prior litigation
C: holding that as long as alleged breach of a continuing duty occurred within six years of the filing of the lawsuit the claim is timely
D: holding the delays of more than six years did not amount to the denial of access to the courts
A.