Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
are echoed by defendants and amici in their briefs on these cross-motions. First, these courts conclude that, viewed subjectively and objectively, notification statutes are “remedial” laws that are not motivated by “punitive, penal purposes.” W.P. v. Poritz, 931 F.Supp. at 1214; see also, e.g., Doe v. Poritz, 662 A.2d at 404 (“legislative intent [behind Megan’s Law] ... is clearly and totally remedial”). These courts rely heavily on their conclusion that these laws serve “significant remedial goals,” including as the “primary focus ... the protection of children and others from previously-convicted sex offenders, near them in the community, who have been found to have a moderate or high risk of re-offense.” W.P. v. Poritz, 931 F.Supp. at 1214; accord Stearns v. Gregoire, slip op. at 13 . Second, these courts also conclude that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a duty will be found to exist where the balance of these factors weighs in favor of placing such a burden on a defendant
B. recognizing that a court must balance the policy in favor of hearing a litigants claims on the merits with the policy in favor of finality
C. holding on motion for preliminary injunction that balance of hardships tipped in favor of public
D. holding that one candidates status as a pension fund tipped the scales in favor of its appointment as lead plaintiff
E. recognizing such balance of interests
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.