Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
compensate one for the time value of money.”). 170 . We have addressed the costs of delay only in the context of a judgment, rather than a sanctions award, holding in Shaw that a government entity with sovereign immunity cannot be held liable for "claims grounded on the belated receipt of funds, even when characterized as compensation for delay.” 478 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2957. Although we have not addressed a court’s sanction award for the costs of delay, the Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have in awarding fees under Rule 11 and other statutory provisions for fees. In Missouri v. Jenkins, the Supreme Court held that when awarding attorne (1994) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. United States Postal Serv., 467 U.S. 512, 520, 104 S.Ct. 2549, 81 L.Ed.2d 1, 496 N.W.2d 459, 467 (1993)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that fdic is immune against interest
B. holding that titere is a significant distinction between fdic in its corporate capacity and its receivership capacity where fdic acts as a receiver it is not immune from prejudgment interest
C. holding that a receiver was immune from a suit alleging defamation conversion and embezzlement arising out of the course of administering the receivership
D. holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to discovery to determine whether the defendant intended to be bound in his personal andor corporate capacity where the agreement contained certain personal guarantees by the defendant but where the defendant signed the agreement only in a corporate capacity with no signature blocks provided for signing in a personally capacity
E. holding that the acts of a corporate officer done in his or her official capacity are acts of the corporation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.