With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". records or recognized the need to ask further questions”). For twenty years, Madoff operated this fraud without being discovered and with only a handful of investors withdrawing their funds as a result of their suspicions. The actions of the minority cannot support an inference of intent to defraud as to the numerous other investors who were still in the dark. An inference of scienter here is simply not as cogent and compelling as the “opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent.” Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 314, 127 S.Ct. 2499. Accordingly, the FMC Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I is granted. Because section 20(a) liability requires “a primary violation” under section 10(b), the section 20(a) claims against Zises and Tessler (Count II) are also dismissed. ATSI Commc’ns, 493 F.3d at 108 (<HOLDING>), b. Direct State Law Claims Against All

A: holding section 20a requires 1 a primary violation by the controlled person 2 control of the primary violator by the targeted defendant and 3 that the controlling person was in some meaningful sense a culpable participant in the fraud perpetrated internal quotation marks omitted
B: holding that the maximum possible sentence provided by law for conviction of the offense charged is the most important consequence of the plea internal quotation marks omitted
C: holding access might be unauthorized under the computer fraud and abuse act if it is not in line with the reasonable expectations of the party granting permission internal quotation marks omitted
D: holding that to establish a prima facie case of control person liability a plaintiff must establish that the alleged control person actually participated in ie exercised control over the operations of the primary violator in general internal quotations omitted
A.