With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". investment strategy (Ex. 96) and involved most of the money invested in the transaction (i.e., $2.9 million (2012 WL 129801, *4)); (iii) did not analyze the transaction’s economics; (iv) did not ask his financial advisors to analyze the transaction’s economics or otherwise evaluate the transaction; (v) decided to participate in the transaction based on two one-hour discussions with his tax advisor; and (vi) did not monitor the transaction. Appellee Br. 37 (citation omitted). KPMG’s engagement letter explicitly warned Mr. Blum that he needed a “reasonable expectation” of profit if OPIS was to withstand IRS scrutiny, and that he ought to “seek independent advice concerning the investment aspects of the proposed transactions.” Ex. 12; ef. Sacks v. Comm’r, 82 F.3d 918, 920 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Blum did not seek independent advice, and

A: holding that an officer was not entitled to qualified immunity from suit when a minimal further investigation would have exonerated the suspect
B: holding that where promotional materials provided warnings that would have warranted further investigation by a prudent investor failure to do so was unreasonable
C: holding that there is no constitutional duty to do a better investigation and that a decision not to conduct a more thorough investigation does not invade an accuseds rights
D: holding that under oklahoma law a bad faith claim  premised on inadequate investigation must be supported by a showing that material facts were overlooked or that a more thorough investigation would have produced relevant information
B.