Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
concealed a conspiracy, as would a letter on plain stationery meant to conceal the identity of its sender. Similarly, alleging that Defendants participated in “clandestine meetings,” (Id. ¶ 99), is not tantamount to representing to others that the meetings were valid trade association meetings when in fact they were meetings in furtherance of a conspiracy. See In re Aluminum Phosphide, 905 F.Supp. at 1470 (dismissing fraudulent concealment claim because plaintiffs failed to cite specific actions by defendants to keep meetings secret). Additionally, alleging that Defendants’ silence indicates acquiescence to a conspiracy, (see Pis.’ Second Am. Compl. ¶ 98), does not constitute an allegation of an affirmative act of concealment. See In re Aluminum Phosphide, 905 F.Supp. at 1470 . Merely claiming that “all conspiracies are
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the law imposes on every person who enters upon an active course of conduct the positive duty to exercise ordinary care to protect others from harm and calls a violation of that duty negligence  that a complete binding contract between the parties is not a prerequisite to a duty to use due care in ones actions     and that architects may be held liable for a breach of the duty of care and breach of contract that results in foreseeable injury economic or otherwise
B. holding that a duty of care may arise out of a contractual relationship between two parties
C. holding  1319a2 imposes mandatory duty
D. holding that silence or passive conduct is not fraudulent unless parties relationship imposes duty to disclose
E. holding that erisas duty of loyalty creates a duty to disclose certain information to beneficiaries
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.