What was the court's decision regarding the investor's claim against the CEO for securities fraud?

The court's decision to properly enter a default judgment indicates that the CEO failed to respond or appear in court, leading to a ruling in favor of the investor by default. In cases involving default judgments, the plaintiff typically must establish that the defendant was given proper notice of the lawsuit and failed to respond within the designated timeline. This is a common procedural outcome when a defendant, particularly in matters of securities fraud, does not contest the allegations brought forth.

Thus, the entry of a default judgment suggests that the investor was successful in establishing their claim without the need for a trial, as the absence of the CEO's response allowed the court to rule in the investor's favor based on the allegations and any supporting evidence presented. This outcome emphasizes the importance of timely responses in legal proceedings and the significance of a defendant's participation in defending against claims.

The other choices, such as lack of standing, ruling in favor of the CEO, or ordering a retrial, do not align with the procedural context that leads to an affirmation of a default judgment and would be relevant only if there were evidence of participation or various procedural defenses addressed.