In U. S. v. McGee, McGee purchased a substantial amount of a PHLY stock after a confidential conversation with a PHLY insider who was a fellow member of Alcoholics Anonymous. The PHLY stock subsequently showed a substantial profit. When the SEC brought charges of insider trading against McGee, the court found:

A) McGee was convicted of insider trading for violating a fiduciary duty of confidentiality. B) McGee was not guilty of insider trading because a promise of confidentiality for purposes of alcoholism treatment is not the same as a fiduciary duty to establish misappropriation liability. C) McGee was not guilty of insider trading because he had no fiduciary relationship with PHLY. D) McGee was convicted of insider trading despite the absence of a fiduciary duty, because any duty of confidentiality, trust, loyalty, or confidence would suffice to establish misappropriation liability.