Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
cure the defect; but where a claim is dead (because it has been forfeited prior to the assignment by the party who could have brought it but failed to), then an assignment cannot resurrect it. Whit-tington’s theory sounds plausible, but he points to no law really supporting it — and as is discussed below, there are numerous cases running in the other direction, including in practically the exact same context as here. a. Constitutional Standing Whittington does not clearly delineate whether his “standing” argument is Article Ill/constitutional or prudential/statutory in nature. Insofar as Whit-tington challenges Plaintiffs’ constitutional standing, that challenge is plainly wrong, under clear Fifth Circuit law. See, e.g., Ensley v. Cody Res., 171 F.3d 815, 819-20 (5th Cir.1999) . Constitutional, “injury in fact” standing
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that troxel opinion did not affect issue of grandparent standing because texas family code standing statute does not overrule parental presumption
B. holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act
C. holding that the lack of shareholder standing under texas law does not implicate constitutional standing
D. holding that preservation of error in the trial court is not necessary as to lack of standing
E. holding that standing existed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.