With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". principle which also supports the same result. In America’s Favorite Chicken Co. v. Cajun Enterprises, Inc., 130 F.3d 180, 186 (5th Cir.1997), the Fifth Circuit held that it did not even have to decide the whether the integration clauses prevented the misrepresentation claims because the allegedly fraudulent statements made to the franchisee were not actionable as a matter of law. Under the applicable state law, a cause of action existed for fraudulent misrepresentation of past or present facts, but unfulfilled promises or statements as to future events could not be the basis for a fraud action. Id. at 186 (emphasis added). Similar to the current case, the franchisor only stated that the franchisee could expect sales similar to those in the exam ries, Inc., 813 F.2d 689 (5th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Hardee’s v. Hardee’s Food Sys., Inc., 31 F.3d

A: holding that expressions of belief or opinion regarding the future of plaintiffs and defendants respective businesses and promissory statements of future intent do not violate the udtpa
B: holding that future predictions and opinions especially those regarding future profitability of business cannot form basis for fraud as matter of law
C: holding as an investment for future development
D: holding that defendants failure to anticipate future events did not constitute securities fraud
B.