Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
state’s argument is very persuasive. The Second Circuit has already held that Connecticut has a sufficient economic interest in the regulations and FMPs promulgated as a result of the Secretary’s actions under § 1854(f)(A) to challenge those regulations in its own right. Dep’t of Commerce, 204 F.3d at 415 n. 2. The Second Circuit declined to address the issue of Connecticut’s standing as parens patriae. Id. This court finds that the economic interest that provided the basis for standing in Daley is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that a state have a quasi-sovereign interest apart from any private citizens in order to maintain a parens patriae suit against the United States. See, Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592, 607, 102 S.Ct. 3260, 73 L.Ed.2d 995 (1982). Unlike in some cases where parens patriae
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a state has a quasisovereign interest in the economic wellbeing of its citizens and in not being denied its rightful status within the federal system
B. holding that when a state sues on behalf of its residents without a sovereign or quasisovereign interest it is only a nominal party and thus not the real party in interest
C. holding that a state must articulate a quasisovereign interest in order to have parens patriae standing
D. recognizing as a quasisovereign interest that the state and its residents are not excluded from the benefits that are to flow fiom participation in the federal system
E. holding that the state would be the real party in interest with respect to its claim for restitution even under the claimbyclaim approach because it has a quasisovereign interest in seeking recovery on behalf of a wide range of consumers and aiming to deter future antitrust conduct by corporations in the state
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.