Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Ninth Circuit reasoned that, “to survive summary judgment, a copyright infringement plaintiff seeking to recover indirect profits damages [i.e., damages for profits that have an attenuated connection to the infringement] under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) must proffer some evidence to create a triable issue regarding whether the infringement at least partially caused the profits that the infringer generated as the result of the infringement.” Id. at 911. “Because Mackie [had] failed to adduce any non-speculative evidence that would even suggest a link between the infringement and the Symphony’s supposedly enhanced revenues,” summary judgment in favor of the Symphony was appropriate. Id.; see id. at 916; see also Univ. of Colo. Found., Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 196 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed.Cir.1999) ; Taylor v. Meirick, 712 F.2d 1112, 1122 (7th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate some nexus between infringement and profits before apportionment can occur
B. holding that a nexus between the corporate officers or directors official activity and the matter for which indemnification is sought must be shown though no more than a nexus whether a nexus exists is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court considering all the circumstances surrounding the proposed indemnification
C. recognizing that derogatory comments may serve as circumstantial evidence of discrimination but the plaintiff must still show some nexus between the statements and the defendants decision to terminate the employee
D. holding that the burden is on the plaintiff
E. holding that no federal nexus is required
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.