Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
event KPMG went out of business. Id. at 610-11. The court found class counsel’s skill and efficiency in obtaining the settlement weighed in favor of approving the fee request, finding class counsel to be “extraordinarily deft and efficient in handling this most complex matter” and concluding “it would be hard to equal the skill class counsel demonstrated here.” Id. at 611. Performing a lodestar cross-check to confirm the fees’ reasonableness, the court found a “handsome,” yet “fairly common” lodestar multiplier of 4.07 based upon 12,906 hours billed since the fee application in Rite Aid I at an hourly rate of $605. Id. at 611 and n. 10. For those reasons, the District Court denied Kaufmann’s objections and awarded class counsel the requested fees plus reimbur 1304, 1307 (3d Cir.1993) . The 2003 Amendment to Fed. R.Civ.P. 23 added
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an unnamed plaintiff that did not intervene nonetheless had standing to appeal a class action settlement
B. holding that unnamed class members who object in a timely manner to approval of a settlement at a fairness hearing may appeal without first intervening
C. holding that unnamed class members who had contested fairness of proposed settlement and attempted to opt out of class action were entitled to appeal settlement under virtualrepresentation doctrine
D. recognizing that requiring an objector to intervene in a class action in order to appeal the approval of a settlement would only add an additional layer of complexity before the appeal of the settlement approval may finally be heard
E. holding an unnamed class member who did not intervene in the action lacked standing to appeal district courts order awarding attorneys fees
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.