Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the forged sales contract. Scott summarized the information in the sales contract to create the loan approval form for the DLC. According to NCB’s former CEO, the DLC approved the loan in reliance on Scott’s summary of the sales contract and on the understanding that NCB, through Scott, possessed the sales contract. The bond does not require the DLC itself to have actual, physical possession of the sales contract. It only requires possession by “the Insured ... or [its] authorized representative.” Cincinnati does not and could not dispute that Scott, a vice president and the loan officer in charge of the Orchard Road loan, possessed the sales contract on behalf NCB or at least as NCB’s authorized representative. See Dix v. Shadeed, 261 Ga.App. 145, 581 S.E.2d 747, 748 (2003) . As long as an NCB employee with a role in the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a company exercising substantial control of the terms and conditions of the work of the employees is an employer under the flsa
B. holding that the employer was not the insurers agent
C. holding an employee is an agent of his employer where the employer assumes the right to control time manner and method of work
D. holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation
E. holding that the employee must at least provide his employer with enough information for the employer to be put on notice that the fmla is a consideration
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.