With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". invoked to artificially limit a trial court’s examination of the factors necessary to a reasoned determination of whether a plaintiff has met her burden of establishing each of the Rule 23 class action requirements.” Castano, 84 F.3d at 744 n. 17 (quoting Love v. Turlington, 733 F.2d 1562, 1564 (11th Cir.1984)). Appellants contend that the Supreme Court’s June 6, 2011 decision in Halliburton, 131 S.Ct. 2179, precludes district courts from rendering merits-based conclusions at the class stage. We disagree. In Halliburton, the Supreme Court does not state that merits inquiries or conclusions cannot occur, or must be ignored, in the fact-intensive Rule 23 analysis. Instead, the Supreme Court’s holding was specific to the securities fraud context in Halliburton. 131 S.Ct. at 2183 (<HOLDING>). This distinction, in fact, was expressly

A: holding two days is sufficient to prove causation
B: holding that we erred by requiring securities fraud plaintiffs to prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification
C: holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud
D: holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case
B.