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 evidence that the Lattas misrepresented material facts about the transaction so could not sue Rainey due to "dirty hands"
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