Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
led to counts one through three and “most of the money went to Pessar.” Our precedent is clear that “[e]quity may require a defendant to restore his victims to the status quo where the loss suffered is greater than the defendant’s unjust enrichment.” Stefanchik, 559 F.3d at 931; see also Commerce Planet, slip op. at 10-11, — Fed.Appx. at —(explaining that there is “no support in our case law” for .the proposition that a restitution award “must be limited to the unjust gains each defendant personally received”). Moreover, as described above, Gordon had control over and approved the marketing materials used, and it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to hold Gordon and his entities jointly and severally liable for the full amount. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d at 931-32 & n. 1 . Lastly, Gordon challenges the time period,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the individual defendants were acting as principals andor officers of the corporation and therefore there was no third party present to interfere in the relationship to which their corporation was a party
B. holding that there was no abuse of discretion where the district court found an individual stefanehik and the corporation he solely owned beringer corporation jointly and severally liable for the full amount of sales made despite other defendants settling where stefanehik and beringer were the driving force behind the marketing scheme
C. holding that corporation and sole owner of corporation were separate legal entities and corporation was not party to contract signed by owner in individual capacity
D. holding individual who signed contract on behalf of a corporation is individually liable where he knew corporation was not incorporated at the time the contract was executed
E. holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.