Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to receive full and fair disclosures regarding the true value of a company’s stock”. Employers-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund v. Anchor Capital Advisors, 498 F.3d 920, 922 n. 1 (9th Cir.2007). Thus, from this approach, as long as the investment advisor has discretion in determining what securities to buy and sell, it qualifies as a purchaser with standing to bring a securities fraud claim. See In re Rent-Way Sec. Litig., 218 F.R.D. 101, 108 (W.D.Penn.2003) (basing its inquiry “not on the presence or absence of specific ‘attorney-in-fact’ language in the agreements, but on the level of discretion exercised by [the investment advisor] in the day-to-day purchase of securities for its clients.”); In re DaimlerChrysler AG Sec. Litig., 216 F.R.D. 291, 299 (D.Del.2003) ; see also Newman v. Eagle Bldg. Technologies,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that investment advisors with authority to make investment decisions for their clients have standing
B. holding that plaintiffs had stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty where they alleged that the revenue sharing payments to the thirdparty service provider were excessive because the underlying mutual funds investment management fees covered all of the necessary investment managementadvisory services needed for the mutual fund
C. holding defendant sold investment contracts when it substituted new investors money for real investment return on old investors funds
D. holding that an africanamerican investment advisor who accompanied two clients into a bank could assert a  51 claim alleging discrimination against the bank even though his clients were the actual customers of the bank
E. holding that an investment advisor has standing in a securities fraud litigation because its clients appointed it as their attorneyinfact
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.