Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in a civil legal malpractice action for breach of contract. In the instant case, the Plaintiffs requested damages “including, but not limited to, the loss of the value of BCA’s stock (estimated to be $2.5M), and the interest and penalties that have accrued on the taxes since July 14, 2006, when the Company was sold [to] Avant.” Amended Complaint, 1/10/11, par. 39. Defendants contend that the above claim for damages is inconsistent with proof of actual loss as required in legal malpractice actions. See Mariscotti v. Tinari, 335 Pa.Super. 599, 485 A.2d 56, 57 (1984) (stating that an essential element of a claim of legal malpractice, whether the action is denominated assumpsit or trespass, is proof of actual loss); see also Kituskie v. Corbman, 552 Pa. 275, 714 A.2d 1027, 1030 (1998) . Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs’
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding breach of fiduciary duty claim is essentially a negligence or professional malpractice claim
B. holding that  the threat of future harm not yet realized is not enough 
C. holding that an essential element of a claim of legal malpractice pursued under either a contract or trespass theory is proof of actual loss rather than breach of a professional duty causing only nominal damages speculative harm or the threat of future harm
D. holding that plaintiffs who alleged a subjective chill of their first amendment rights failed to establish specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm
E. holding that the right to nominal damages was waived in a breach of duty action when plaintiff failed to raise the issue of nominal damages until after the verdict
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.