Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
statute. Id. Based solely on his delivery of the boat within Virginia’s boundaries, the Supreme Court of Virginia held the defendant subject to personal jurisdiction in the Commonwealth. Id. at 563-64. Because the claim asserted in Peninsula Cruise was based on the defendant’s failure to pay for repairs, not the failure to deliver the boat, the case points persuasively to the conclusion that acts of contract performance may confer jurisdiction in a breach of contract action even if those acts are not specifically related to the alleged breach. This reading of Peninsula Cruise is supported by Prolinks, Inc. v. Horizon Organic Dairy, 58 Va. Cir. 17, 20 (2001), which states in dicta that Peninsula Cruise establishes that “part performance of a contract [in the pp. 935, 937 (S.D.N.Y.1985) . In this case, therefore, all of defendant’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding new york law may prohibit noncompete forfeiture provisions but erisa statutes allow forfeiture of all deferred compensation benefits under noncompete forfeiture provisions in a top hat plan
B. holding that plaintiffemployers claim that defendant violated noncompete agreement did not arise out of defendants businessrelated visits to new york
C. holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership
D. holding that television station was not subject to personal jurisdiction in  new york under that states longarm statute since libel claim did not arise from defendants delivery of mail orders to new york
E. holding that outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.