With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Abrams, 292 F.3d at 433. In regard to scienter, Plaintiffs have not alleged facts that would support a strong inference of knowledge or severe recklessness as to the fraudulent nature of statements regarding the second well and adequacy of funding. As explained above, Plaintiffs have not pled any of the statements were false or misleading 'when made. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not pled Defendants intentionally misrepresented AGR’s time and cost estimates, that they presented them to shareholders knowing they were misleading, or that the estimates presented an “obvious danger of misleading buyers of Defendants’] securities as to the value of the company’s assets” which should have been known to Defendants. Spitzberg v. Houston Am. Energy Corp., 758 F.3d 676, 684 (5th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). In parallel litigation, a New York State

A: holding analysts statements insufficient to satisfy particularity requirements because plaintiffs failed to identify with specificity the statements made by a particular defendant or describe how those statements were false or misleading
B: holding that a duty to disclose arises whenever secret information renders prior public statements materially misleading
C: holding statements plausibly suggesting oil was found in dry hole and unexplored concession may have been obviously misleading
D: holding that pleading standard for recklessness was met where the corporate officer included false statements in sec filings despite the obviously evasive and suspicious statements made to him by the corporate officials upon whom he was relying and despite outside counsels recommendation that these statements not be included
C.