With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". re Evergreen, 705 F.Supp.2d 86, 94 (D.Mass.2010), citing In re Merrill Lynch, 272 F.Supp.2d at 253-254. According to defendants this is one of those cases where the grounds for dismissal are apparent. Defendants argue that at the time Plumbers’ Fund sold the 2006-AF1 trust (November 1, 2007), no corrective disclosure concerning that particular Certificate had been issued by Nomura. Only afterwards, on November 13, 2007, did the announcement of the Moody’s downgrade take place. See Consolidated Am. Compl. ¶ 173. Because the sale and alleged loss occurred before the corrective disclosure, it follows that the alleged misrepresentations could not have caused the loss. See In re Merrill Lynch, 272 F.Supp.2d at 254-255, citing Akerman v. Oryx Commc’ns, Inc., 810 F.2d 336, 342 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs respond that Akerman does not

A: holding that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale where no fraud is shown is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach
B: holding that where a price decline in stock occurred prior to the alleged public disclosure disclosing the misstatement the decline in price did not constitute a loss actionable under the 1933 act because it could not have been caused by misstatements which had not yet been revealed
C: holding that plaintiff was entitled to sue under rule 10b5 for the difference between the price and the value received from the sale of the security where as here the evil is not the price at which plaintiff bought but the fact of being induced to buy
D: holding that the market price is understood to mean the current market price being paid for gas at the well where it is produced
B.