Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and its companion, United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 85 S.Ct. 1585, 14 L.Ed.2d 626 (1965), have since been extended to provide immunity to private efforts to influence courts, federal and state agencies. California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510, 92 S.Ct. 609, 30 L.Ed.2d 642 (1972). The counterclaimants protest that this doctrine does not immunize an entire course of wrongful acts simply because Bristol requested government approval and licenses as part of its allegedly tortious scheme. They rely on Allied, Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc. that the scope of antitrust protection depends on the “source, context, and nature of the anticompetitive restraint at issue.” 486 U.S. 492, 499, 108 S.Ct. 1931, 100 L.Ed.2d 497 (1988) . “An anticompetitive, private tortious scheme
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing private right of action
B. holding that an antitrust injury is an injury that is attributable to an anticompetitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny
C. holding that anticompetitive actions of private standardsetting body could not be considered either valid governmental action or incidental to a valid effort to influence government action and thus were subject to antitrust scrutiny
D. holding that a private antitrust action for injury sounds in tort and is subject to a three year statute of limitations
E. holding that an acceleration clause is not subject to antitrust scrutiny where plaintiffs conceded that they could be procompetitive in some circumstances but noting that noag clauses are subject to antitrust scrutiny
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.