With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (internal quotation marks omitted). No such circumstances are pleaded here. The complaint alleges that Shaw owed Boccardi a fiduciary duty because Shaw agreed to act as its “underwriter, investment banker and financier.” Am. Compl. ¶42. As the district court correctly observed, however, the complaint’s factual allegations, if proved, would not establish that Shaw agreed to act as Boccardi’s “financier”; rather, Boccardi expected to finance its own participation. See id. ¶¶ 19-21. Nor would Shaw’s receipt of confidential information, without more, transform it into Boccardi’s fiduciary. The cases Boccardi cites in support of this contention are distinguishable. See, e.g., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDW Group, LLC, No. 08 Civ. 9116, 2009 WL 321222, at *10, 12 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2009) (<HOLDING>). There is no allegation that Shaw agreed to

A: recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted
B: holding duty existed where alleged fiduciary received a great deal of highly confidential and sensitive information cultivated relationships with principals employees and acted as principals adviser in a position of extraordinary trust internal quotation marks omitted
C: holding that beneficiary of general support trust has a legal right to compel distribution of funds internal quotation marks omitted
D: holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted
B.