Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
price reduction of $500,000. Ultimately, the general partners agreed to a settlement whereby the price to be paid by Horsham was reduced by $200,000, of which $100,000 would be deducted from the sum to be received by the partnership and $100,000 deducted from the commission to be received by Padmar. Padmar also agreed to guarantee Horsham $500,000 of future lease payments as they became due under the Leases. The sale then closed, and the cash proceeds of sale were distributed to and accepted by all of the limited partners. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The general partners contend this is a derivative action, cognizable in equity and thus this court may find facts in accordance with our view of the preponderance of the evidence. Pelfrey v. Bank of Greer, 270 S.C. 691, 244 S.E. (2d) 315 (1978) . Conversely, the limited partners argue
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that derivative actions do not require the support of a majority of shareholders or even all of the minority shareholders
B. holding that shareholders had standing to bring derivative suit against the government but not direct suit due to lack of privity
C. recognizing that in a derivative action the corporation for whose benefit suit is brought is a necessary party to the action
D. holding a shareholders derivative action even where the only relief allowed is a recovery of damages is nevertheless a suit in equity and not an action at law
E. holding that in rendering judgment following the settlement of a derivative action that did not involve a class action trial court lacked jurisdiction to render judgment that would adjudicate rights and personal claims of individual shareholders who were not parties to derivative action that was being settled
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.