Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and C (Nelson Dep. at 13;24-14:12). They also caused the duplicative second lawsuit to be filed. This Court and the Fifth Circuit rejected the individual Defendants’ defense that they never read the LLC Purchase Agreement before signing it. # 52 at 5-6; # 55; # 170 at 2 (“Dallas Gas erred in not reading the addendum that effected the release, and Dallas Gas ratified the release by keeping the sums received under the contract.”). Where a court has previously held that an unambiguous release and covenant not to sue bars the plaintiffs claims, the plaintiffs breach of the release and covenant not to sue may be deemed “obvious” as a matter of law, and the sued party is entitled to damages. Lubrizol Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 957 F.2d 1302, 1306 (5th Cir.1992) (applying New York law) . See also McKissick v. Gemstar-TV Guide Int’l,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where an action is brought in obvious breach of covenant not to sue court has wide discretion to impose liability for litigation expenses including attorneys fees
B. holding parties agreement provided clear contractual justification for the award of costs and expenses including attorneys fees to the prevailing party
C. holding that trial court has wide discretion in determining sufficiency of foundation for opinion testimony
D. holding that by choosing the words any actual expenses including attorneys fees incurred congress did not intend to remove the discretion of the district court to award fees in cases such as contingent fee or pro bono cases where the client has not actually incurred the obligation to pay her attorneys fees
E. holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.