Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that granting relief in its case will not have been a “futile gesture.” Boyd v. Bulala, 905 F.2d 764, 769 (4th Cir.1990). Essentially, the law “requires a proffer of evidence which would permit a finding for the [moving] party or which would establish a valid counterclaim.” Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc. v. Fodor Contracting Corp., 843 F.2d 808, 812 (4th Cir.1988). To prove a meritorious claim or defense, the movant need not show an actual likelihood of success at trial but must make allegations that, if established at trial, would constitute a valid claim or defense. See 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 60.24[2] (3d ed.1999). See, e.g., Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local 59 v. Superline Transp. Co., 953 F.2d 17, 21 (1st Cir.1992) . For purposes of gauging the movant’s claim or
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that regardless of other factors as to harms a movants likelihood of success must carry at least a fair chance of success on the merits in order to warrant interim relief internal quotation omitted
B. holding that although the movant  need not establish  an ironclad claim or defense which will guarantee success at trial it must at least establish that it possesses a potentially meritorious claim or defense which if proven will bring success in its wake
C. holding that under the sliding scale approach a petitioner had made a sufficiently strong showing of likely success on the merits where he presented a case which raises serious legal questions or has a reasonable probability or fair prospect of success
D. holding that in class action the claim or defense of the representative party must be typical of the claim or defense of each member of the class
E. holding that the movant had to establish both of the first two factors ie likelihood of success and irreparable harm to receive a preliminary injunction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.