With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The complaint alleges Ottman’s former manager “acting within the scope of his employment” published a defamatory memorandum to employees one business day after Ottman quit his stockbroker job. It also alleges the memorandum and a subsequent inadequate “retraction memorandum” held him up to ridicule and public contempt “in his profession as a stockbroker.” Ottman argues those two memoranda have no “rational connection” to his employment, but simply reflect “emotional, unprofessional outbursts designed to further” a private agenda after Ottman was gone. However, a review of the two internal memoranda demonstrates: (a) the first memorandum provided notification of Ottman’s resignation; and (b) the second memorandum provide .2d 500, 504 N.Y.S.2d 82, 495 N.E.2d 345, 346-50 (1986) (<HOLDING>). II. In the alternative, Ottman argues the U-4

A: holding attorneys motion to intervene in former clients tort suit untimely because attorney had clear and early notice that former client would not adequately represent his interests
B: holding clients independent voluntary decision to dismiss products liability suit precluded finding that attorneys alleged negligent preparation of case proximately caused clients injury
C: holding as arbitrable posttermination defamation claim based on letter sent to clients stating former stockbrokers were on the road again    and regretting if their frequent moves have caused you inconvenience
D: holding that a law firm receiving funds for a client was not an initial transferee because the firms role with respect to the received money was to accept the funds in settlement of its clients case deposit the money in trust keep as fees only what the the clients agreed to and pay the rest to the bank on behalf of the clients in satisfaction of their loan
C.