Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
immunity. See Validity and Construction of Indian Reorganization Act, 28 A.L.R. Fed.2d 563 at § 27 (citing cases); but see id. at § 28 (citing cases holding that sue-and-be sued clause does not constitute express waiver). Here, however, CNI’s charter does not contain a broad sue-and-be-sued clause; instead, the ability to take legal action is limited to action approved by the board of directors. Thus, even if we were to conclude that a broad sue-and-be-sued clause waives tribal-sovereign immunity, this clause is insufficient to do the job. Cf. Ninigret Dev. Corp. v. Narragansett Indian Wetuomuck Hous. Auth., 207 F.3d 21, 30 (1st Cir.2000) (“[T]he enactment of such an ordinance ... does not waive a tribe’s sovereign immunity.... [The o uper. 357, 747 A.2d 837, 841-42, 844 (1999) ; but see Rush Creek Solutions, Inc. v. Ute
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an act of legislature may be required to waive sovereign immunity
B. holding that a senior vice presidents signature to an agreement with an express waiver of sovereign immunity provision did not waive sovereign immunity because that right was reserved exclusively to the tribal council
C. holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity
D. holding that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity
E. holding that a controllers signature on a contract containing a forum selection clause was insufficient to waive sovereign immunity in part because the right to waive immunity was reserved to the tribal council
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.