With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 555 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 459 U.S. 375, 103 S.Ct. 683, 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983). Arthur Young relies on a sophism to obscure the law, which is that when the circumstances of a case so dictate, privity is not required for the court to award rescissory damages in a Rule 10b-5 case. As the Eleventh Circuit has concluded: “Though we recognize the harshness of this result given that the defendants were not the actual sellers of the stock and therefore must ‘rescind’ by paying an amount they in fact never received, the substantial role played by the defendants provides adequate justification for the award.” Bruschi v. Brown, 876 F.2d 1526, 1532 (11th Cir.1989) (quotation omitted). See also Gordon v. Burr, 506 F.2d 1080, 1085 (2d Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>) We conclude that the district court properly

A: holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction
B: holding that before a defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of the victims character for violence there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim was the first aggressor and that once the defendant testified that he was attacked and cut by the victim without provocation before using the victims utility tool to stab the victim the defendant was clearly entitled to question the victim about past acts of violence reflected in court documents from the state of oregon
C: holding in a rule 10b5 action that as between the innocent purchaser and the wrongdoer who though not a privy to the fraudulent contract nonetheless induced the victim to make the purchase equity requires the wrongdoer to restore the victim to the status quo
D: holding that uncharged sexual acts committed upon the same victim are admissible to show the conduct of the defendant toward the victim and to corroborate the evidence of the offense charged in the indictment
C.