Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
injunction and that the injunction was not validly issued under Boys Markets, see id. at 12-13. There, injunctive relief could not be justified “on either ground — to enforce a contract or support arbitration — let alone both.” Id. at 12. That an order staying arbitration could not be in support of arbitration was self-evident. Id. The company argued that there was no contract requiring arbitration and that it could not be forced into arbitration. Id. In addition to vacating overly broad injunctive relief and injunctive relief that did not advance the arbitral process, this court has also reversed grants of Boys Markets injunctive relief for failure to meet the traditional four-part equitable test. See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 633, 511 F.2d 1097, 1100 (1st Cir.1975) . Neither the Supreme Court nor this court has
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the insured failed to meet its burden where the insurer had reserved its rights to assert coverage defenses
B. holding that the statutory restrictions relative to an employers affirmative defenses where the employer elects not to operate under the respective workers compensation law cannot extend so as to deprive the employer of being able to require the plaintiffemployee to establish a case of negligence against the employer
C. holding that the balance of relative harms to the parties showed employer did not meet its burden
D. holding employer satisfied its burden of production
E. holding the state failed to meet its burden of showing the erroneous jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where it did not address the issue on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.