With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Atl., 127 S.Ct. at 1965). 65 . Id. at 99. 66 . See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b). 67 . ATSI, 493 F.3d at 99 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3)(A)). 68 . Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). Accord ATSI, 493 F.3d at 99. 69 . ATSI, 493 F.3d at 99 (citing Rombach v. Chang, 355 F.3d 164, 171 (2d Cir.2004)). 70 . Rombach, 355 F.3d at 170 (quotation omitted). Accord ATSI, 493 F.3d at 99 (citing Novak v. Kasaks, 216 F.3d 300, 306 (2d Cir.2000)). 71 . ATSI, 493 F.3d at 99. 72 . Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 2504, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007) (quotation omitted) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b) (l), (2)). 73 . Id. (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(2)). 74 . Id. at 2509. These plausible opposing inferences, however, may be based only on the complaint and other public documents on whi .Y.1999) (<HOLDING>). 81 . Novak, 216 F.3d at 308 (citation

A: holding that statements downplaying internal control problems were actionable because they misled investors into believing the problems were not as serious or extensive as they were
B: holding that tort claims were arbitrable because they arose out of and were related to contract
C: holding exhibits deemed admitted into evidence where they were treated below without objection as if they were admitted
D: holding that even if defendants knew that the company had inventory problems  that fact standing alone does not show that defendants knew that the statements in their prospectus or other representations were materially false or misleading at the time the material statements were made
A.