Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
duty of utmost good faith and fair dealing.” (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 461.) Henneberry fails, however, to provide the Court with any factual allegations that show any duty specifically owed to Henneberry that is separate and outside of a duty SCOA may have owed all of the shareholders. Simply stating a duty existed does not make it so where the preceding factual allegations do not support such a claim. See First Nationwide Bank v. Gelt Funding Corp., 27 F.3d 763, 772 (2d Cir.1994) (“ ‘[Cjourts do not accept conclusory allegations on the legal effect of the events plaintiff has set out if these allegations do not reasonably follow from his description of what happened.’ ” (quoting Kadar Corp. v. Milbury, 549 F.2d 230, 233 (1st Cir.1977))); Salahuddin v. Jones, 992 F.2d 447, 449 (2d Cir.1993) ; 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that allegations against nondiverse defendants must be factual not conclusory because conclusory allegations do not state a claim
B. holding district courts dismissal of plaintiffs claims proper where plaintiff only made wholly conclusory and inconsistent allegations
C. holding party opposing summary judgment does not show genuine issue for trial by replacing conclusory allegations of the complaint or answer with conclusory allegations of an affidavit
D. holding that securities fraud claims cannot rest on speculation and conclusory allegations
E. holding that district courts dismissal of state law claims was proper where the district court had properly dismissed all of the federal questions that gave it original jurisdiction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.