With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the allegations are accompanied by a statement of the facts upon which the belief is founded. See id. We apply Rule 9(b) to the plaintiffs’ various averments of fraud. Claim 1—Declaratory Relief. The defendants do not distinctly challenge these allegations and the district court did not address the issue. We assume this claim satisfies Rule 9(b). Claim 2—Breach of Fiduciary Duty. The plaintiffs raise solely a derivative claim of breach of fiduciary duty. Because this claim fails under Rule 23.1(a), we need not address the defendants’ arguments under Rule 9(b). Claim S—Fraud. The complaint’s allegations of fraud in part allege the circumstances of fraud with sufficient particularity. The complaint includes minimally sufficient allegations aga Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel. Lee v. SmithKline

A: holding a broad claim with no factual support was insufficient to satisfy rule 9b
B: holding that charge of money laundering need not satisfy rule 9b
C: holding a complaint failed to satisfy rule 9b where the allegations were lacking in detail
D: holding allegations that fraudulent statements were made during fourmonth period insufficient to satisfy rule 9b
C.