With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". financial and other public statements presumptively consistent with the strictures of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, especially where it is unclear that the contents of the addendum directly address the allegedly misleading information in the statements. See Virginia Bankshares, 501 U.S. at 1097, 111 S.Ct. at 2760-61 (stating that “a misleading statement will not always lose its deceptive edge simply by joinder with others that are true”). To immunize the type of conduct alleged here would be to give companies a license to issue groundless appraisals to investors so long as they include a modest footnote or appendix with a kernel of truth that might enable an analyst or accountant to spot the inconsistencies. See S.E.C. v. Rana Research, Inc., 8 F.3d 1358, 1362-63 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); cf. Virginia Bankshares, 501 U.S. at 1097,

A: holding positive press release was not actionable where plaintiffs have not alleged that any of the historical representations in that press release were false
B: holding that plan beneficiaries could not have reasonably relied on any alleged oral misrepresentations in light of a signed severance agreement containing information to the contrary
C: holding that a principal does not have an action against his agent for indemnification based on the agents misrepresentations because the principal was not blameless in the misrepresentations made to the third parties
D: holding that curative press releases containing a grain of truth did not prevent deception of the market due to previous misrepresentations
D.