Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
compared to Sieg’s multiplier of 73%. Assuming an adjusted book value of $78.34 per share (book value adjusted by partially restating inventory to a FIFO basis per Ma-roney’s testimony), Sieg’s per-share value would have been $57.19 compared to the court’s value of $62.67, a difference of only $5.48 per share. Even if the marketability discount taken by Sieg is not allowed in Iowa, an issue we do not decide, the impact this error had on Sieg’s valuation of the stock was slight and would certainly support the trial court’s exercise of discretion to deny the substantial attorney fees sought by the dissenters, particularly in view of the fact the use of a marketability discount was not done in bad faith. See Waters v. Double L, Inc., 114 Idaho 256, 755 P.2d 1294, 1305 (Idaho Ct.App.1987) , modified, 115 Idaho 705, 769 P.2d 582 (1989);
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the defendant was only permitted to recover attorney fees as an item of special damages with respect to the underlying action in which the defendant was sued and was not permitted to recover attorney fees incurred in the malpractice portion of the case as damages
B. holding a summary judgment to be final although motion to assess attorney fees remained pending because award of attorney fees is collateral to judgment
C. holding because an award of attorney fees is discretionary court may consider attorney fees in relation to the underlying equities in the case
D. holding that a summary judgment was final and appealable even though a request for attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the alaa remained pending because any award of attorney fees is collateral to the judgment
E. recognizing that an appeal filed within 30 days of the entry of an order awarding attorney fees was timely filed as to the issue of attorney fees
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.