Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
do not object to the final judgment to engage in yet another round of costly and time consuming litigation. As the Second Circuit has observed, “in making the choice between the possibility of harm to the late-arriving prospective intervenors as against the possible harm to parties who have participated diligently during the pertinent portions of this litigation, it does not strike us as unjust that intervention on the part of the late-arrivers must yield under all of the circumstances herein.” Yonkers Bd. of Ed., 801 F.2d at 596. II. Motion for an Extension of Time to Appeal Intervenors’ failure to establish their standing is fatal to their motion for an extension of time to file an appeal. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of World-Com, Inc. v. SEC, 467 F.3d 73, 77 (2d Cir. 2006) . Even assuming intervenors had met their
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that article iii standing is not a prerequisite to intervention
B. holding that standing is an essential and unchanging part of the easeorcontroversy requirement of article iii
C. holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction
D. holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention
E. recognizing that standing is an essential component of our appellate jurisdiction and permitting party to appeal only after determining that they had met the requirements of article iii standing
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.