With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and apply hindsight to the assessment of the capability of the existing software. That an accounting error existed does not raise an - inference that Defendants knew or must have known of the error. Id. Plaintiffs allegations relating to the availability of specialized software and consulting services focused on ASC 310-30 implementation are insufficient to raise a strong inference of severe recklessness. Id. Nor do they permit the Court to conclusively infer that Defendants had reason to know of errors in their accounting systems. Here, as in Ceridian, a plausible opposing inference of inadvertent “mistakes by accounting personnel [that went] undetected because of faulty accounting controls” is equally, if not more, persuasive. Id.; see also Horizon Asset Mgmt., 580 F.3d at 766 (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Plaintiff further argues

A: holding that the plaintiff must have more than a unilateral expectation the plaintiff must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to the benefit
B: 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
C: holding that a plaintiff alleging securities fraud must show that a defendant 1 made a material misrepresentation or a material omission as to which he or she had a duty to speak 2 with scienter 3 in connection with the purchase or sale of securities
D: holding that a plaintiff must allege more than incompetence or corporate mismanagement before a claim of negligence rises to the level of securities fraud
D.