Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the Model Act, especially when the General Assembly would have been fully aware of the Model Act’s commentary when enacting our Business Corporation Act. This interpretation is also consistent with opinions of this Court in analogous situations. See Lowder v. All Star Mills, Inc., 103 N.C. App. 479, 482, 405 S.E.2d 794, 796 (“Jeanne Lowder’s claims arise from and depend on the role of her husband as officer of the corporation. To regard her claims otherwise would be to enable officers of a corporation to defraud their companies and avoid any accounting or detection by acting through their spouses and then allowing a spouse to assert claims.”), disc. review denied, 330 N.C. 119, 409 S.E.2d 595 (1991); cf. City of Asheville v. Morris, 133 N.C. App. 90, 92, 514 S.E.2d 289, 291 (1999) . Moreover, there is no need, in this case, to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that civil service board members had interests in the matter and should have recused themselves when one member had a husband and another a son who would be affected by the boards decision
B. holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school boards president constituted the decision of the board
C. holding that the boards finding that a matter was not before it because a substantive appeal had not been filed was error and determining that because a timely nod had been submitted and the ro never responded by issuing an soc as required by law and regulation the proper remedy was to vacate the board decision as to the matter and remand to the board for appropriate procedural compliance specifically the issuance of an soc
D. holding that an associations president who was not a party before the board of appeals was not entitled to appeal the boards decision granting a zoning application that his association had opposed in the board proceedings
E. holding that because pennsylvania law limited a state courts review of a zoning boards decision to the issue whether the boards determinations were supported by substantial evidence the rookerfeldman doctrine did not prevent the plaintiffs from filing a federal action claiming that the zoning board had engaged in disability discrimination following a state courts review of the boards determinations
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.