With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the MicroStrategy Defendants collectively (and not also to PwC). 28 . In re Orbital Sciences Corp. Sec. Litig., 58 F.Supp.2d 682, 687 (E.D.Va.1999); see, e.g., Chill v. General Electric Co., 101 F.3d 263, 270 (2d Cir.1996); In re Worlds of Wonder Sec. Litig., 35 F.3d 1407, 1426 (9th Cir.1994); In re Peritus Software Servs., Inc. Sec. Litig., 52 F.Supp.2d 211, 223 (D.Mass.1999) (noting that "[a] host of courts have held that a mere failure to recognize revenue in accordance with GAAP does not, in itself, suffice to establish scienter.”). 29 . In re Comshare, 183 F.3d at 553 (internal quotation marks omitted, alteration in original). 30 . In re The Baan Co. Sec. Litig., 103 F.Supp.2d 1, 21 (D.D.C.2000); see, e.g., Chalverus v. Pegasystems, Inc., 59 F.Supp.2d 226, 233-36 (D.Mass.1999) (<HOLDING>); cf., e.g., In re Comshare, 183 F.3d at 553

A: holding that failure to follow gaap without more is insufficient to establish scienter
B: holding that when reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence all evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government
C: holding that the fact that the company violated gaap when viewed in light of significant overstatements of revenue tended to support inference of scienter
D: holding that significant gaap violations described with particularity may provide powerful indirect evidence of scienter
C.