Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
whether they wish to proceed with' their own lawsuit, or to join a class, if one has been certified. Id. (quoting In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 294 F.Supp.2d 431, 452 (S.D.N.Y.2003)). Plaintiffs argue vehemently that Wyser-Pratte is not binding on this Court because it constitutes an improper limitation of Supreme Court doctrine, represents the minority rule, and was wrongly decided. We recognize that Wyser-Pratte now represents the- minority rule. Compare Glater v. Eli Lilly & Co., 712 F.2d 735, 739 (1st Cir.1983) (approving in dicta of-forfeiture rule), with State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Boellstorff, 540 F.3d 1223, 1230 (10th Cir.2008); In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litig., 534 F.3d 986, 1009 (9th Cir.2008); In re WorldCom Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 245, 254-56 (2d Cir.2007) . That several of our fellow Circuits chose not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding american pipe tolling continued when court of appeals reversed district courts class certification but remanded for further proceedings on certification as to subclass that included plaintiff
B. holding that no subsequent class actions may benefit from tolling when class certification has been denied
C. holding that american pipe  tolling applies to plaintiffs who file actions while class certificationis pending
D. holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case
E. recognizing that american pipe established that commencement of a class action tolls the applicable statute of limitations as to all members of the class
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.