Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
one possible exception (30 March 2001 purchase), Financial purchased its shares after Amresco disclosed the plan (in the Y2000 10-K, signed on the day of the first purchase (30 March) and filed on 2 April). Therefore, it cannot claim' it would not have done so had it known about the plan. b. Finally, Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead scienter for any Individual Defendant because the SAC makes only general allegations and conelusory statements, such as stating they knew, or were reckless in failing to disclose, adverse material. See ABC Arbitrage, 291 F.3d at 348. Along this line, Plaintiffs’ mere allegation that the Individual Defendants were motivated by a desire to retain their jobs does not satisfy the scienter requirement. See Melder v. Morris, 27 F.3d 1097, 1102 (5th Cir.1994) . Because Plaintiffs fail to plead material
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding scienter required for fraud claim not established merely by alleging defendants were motivated by jobretention goal
B. holding the pslra standard for pleading scienter is more stringent than the second circuits standard prior to the act and that motive and opportunity is not an independent basis to show defendants had scienter
C. holding that a failure to maintain sufficient internal controls to avoid fraud is  indicative of scienter
D. holding that in order to make out a hostile work environment claim plaintiff must provide evidence indicating that the defendants actions were motivated by discrimination
E. holding that regardless of whether the defendant actually had a right to monies claimed defendants demands under the contract were not extortion because they were motivated by the defendants interpretation of the agreement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.