In Latta V

In Latta v.Rainey,where Rainey sold investments in a Ponzi scheme to investors as a sales agent for the company running the scam and was sued by Latta and others for securities fraud,the appeals court held that:

A) there was sufficient evidence that Rainey misrepresented material facts and had an intent to deceive and so was guilty of fraud
B) there was not sufficient evidence that Rainey misrepresented material facts and had an intent to deceive and so he was not guilty of fraud
C) there was not sufficient evidence that Rainey misrepresented material facts,but he was still liable for damages because the Lattas suffered damages due to his actions
D) the company that employed Rainey could be held liable,but Rainey,as a mere employee,could not be held liable for securities fraud
E) none of the other choices are correct