With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 560 (1979). 2 . Although the indictment charged McGee under both subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2), the District Court only instructed the jury as to subsection (b)(2). J.A. 446-450. 3 . In Chiarella, the Court reversed the conviction of a print-shop employee who traded securities of takeover targets he deduced from print materials because he did not share a fiduciary or similar relationship with the targets' shareholders. 445 U.S. at 224-225, 235, 100 S.Ct. 1108. Similarly, in Dirks, an investment analyst was not liable for tipping his clients about a company’s fraud because "[t]here was no expectation by [the analyst’s inside] sources that he would keep their information in confidence.” 463 U.S. at 665, 103 S.Ct. 3255. 4 . Compare United States v. Kim, 184 F.Supp.2d 1006 (N.D.Cal.2002) (<HOLDING>), with SEC v. Kirch, 263 F.Supp.2d 1144

A: holding that there was no duty of confidentiality between members of a social group of ceos although club rules emphasized a need for confidential ity
B: holding such duties existed between members of a group of software executives because the need for confidentiality was understood
C: holding there was no evidence to support the existence of any alleged fiduciary duty
D: holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify
A.