With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". were aware of this system of dissemination to major investors such as NJT. Id. at 502, 904 A.2d 786. Thus, it was a reasonable “inference and imputation of knowledge that the investor relations division would transmit the false statements to” NJT in New Jersey. Id. at 504, 904 A.2d 786. Here, by contrast, the crux of this alleged conspiracy was the dissemination of false statements to affect the financial markets in New York in order to cause harm to a Canadian corporation. These defendants did not make statements their alleged co- conspirators distributed into New Jersey. Importantly, there is no basis for an inference that these defendants were aware of any particular actions taken by their alleged co-conspirators in New Jersey. See Glaros v. Perse, 628 F.2d 679, 682 (1st Cir. 1980) (<HOLDING>); Althouse, supra, 52 Fordham L. Rev. at 253

A: holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators
B: holding that admission of evidence of activity not done in furtherance of the conspiracy was harmless error where defendants participation was fully established by the testimony of another coconspirator
C: holding that the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction requires that the outofstate coconspirator was or should have been aware of the acts performed in the forum state in furtherance of the conspiracy
D: holding that once a defendant becomes associated with a conspiracy he is responsible for all of the acts of the conspiracy even those which occurred before or after his association with the conspiracy
C.