With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as violations of the law of nations. See Mastafa, 770 F.3d at 181 (finding that “plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of asserting some causes of actions grounded in actions recognized as violations of customary international law” where they asserted that the principal committed genocide, war crimes, and ■crimes against humanity). III. Theory of Liability Plaintiffs assert that the “actions of defendant LCB ... constituted aiding and abetting [Hezbollah’s] acts of genocide, crimes against humanity[,] and war crimes under the law of nations.” App. Ill (emphasis added). Aiding and abetting is a theory of liability recognized by customary international law. Khulumani, 504 F.3d at 260 (Opinion of the Court); see id. at 270 (Katzmann, J., concurring); see also Mastafa, 770 F.3d at 181 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Plaintiffs have pleaded a theory

A: recognizing aiding and abetting trespass
B: holding it was not a surprise or unfair to the defendant for the state to pursue a theory of aiding and abetting at trial when the charging document did not refer to aiding and abetting
C: recognizing that in this circuit a plaintiff may plead a theory of aiding and abetting liability under the ats
D: recognizing aiding and abetting conversion
C.