Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
omitted); accord Kenton v. Wood, 56 Ariz. 325, 331, 107 P.2d 380, 383 (1940) (“[D]i-rectors are trustees for the benefit of the stockholders.”). ¶ 16 In support of their contention that this case arises out of contract, Defendants argue that they had no duty to preserve development opportunities for Corvallas absent an alleged oral agreement with Plaintiff, and that they were free to pursue real estate developments outside Corvallas. But Defendants’ argument goes to the merits of Plaintiffs claim, not to its fundamental nature: Plaintiff did not sue for breach of any alleged oral agreement, and the validity and terms of such an agreement were not necessary to the disposition of the claim. Compare Asphalt Eng’rs, Inc. v. Galusha, 160 Ariz. 134, 138, 770 P.2d 1180, 1184 (App.1989) . Further, a defense based on the absence of a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when an employee had his duties changed but had no interest created or protected by the constitution or state law in those duties then no liberty interest claim was stated
B. holding that under delaware law the fiduciary duties of officers are the same as those of directors
C. holding that the amount of time devoted to managerial duties and the significance of those duties present factual questions
D. holding that a breach of duties that a fiduciary contractually assumes beyond those duties imposed by law is considered to arise out of contract
E. recognizing similar duties
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.