Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
evidence presented to the district court in support of Echo’s motion. As in Atlantic Richfield, the evidence upon which Echo relied was of a general nature; the plaintiffs’ arguments, like those that failed to persuade the Atlantic Richfield court, are entirely based on ratios derived from financial statements — ie., the Average Return on Equity and Average Return on Receivables — without any specific proof as to how the withheld amounts were deployed. Compare J.A. 2685-86 (Echo’s motion), and Aplee. Br. at 21-23; with Atlantic Richfield, 226 F.3d at 1158-59. Indeed, Echo’s own expert noted his “understanding that [HRSI] did not escrow the[ ] withheld monies and such funds were commingled with the working capital of the corporation.” J.A. 2729; cf. Atlantic Richfield, 226 F.3d at 1159 . Echo not only failed to carry its own burden
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the specific proof requirement has the effect of permitting large corporate defendants to shield themselves against claims for moratory interest simply by eomingling funds with other corporate assets
B. holding that a corporate officer signing a contract in his corporate capacity is generally not liable for damages under the contract
C. holding that a fraudulent transfer claim against a corporate debtors control person belongs to the corporate debtor not to specific creditors
D. holding that grand jury testimony of officer and inhouse counsel for corporate defendant was properly admitted as admission against the corporate defendant
E. holding that the general corporate laws are incorporated into the corporate charter
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.