Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
allegedly used the investor’s funds to execute physical trades for his account contrary to his instructions. Id. at 323. 9 . In a footnote in their sur-reply brief, plaintiffs suggest that the very fact that RCM sold their property — regardless of whether the sales were made on their behalf or for RCM’s own benefit — is sufficient to make them "sell ers” under the Bimbaum rule. (P. Sur-reply Mem. 7 n. 19.) Although Caiola does make passing mention to the fact that Citibank "purchased physical shares and options with [plaintiff's] funds,” as explained above, the Court of Appeals made explicitly clear that for purposes of Rule 10b-5 standing, the “key fact is that [plaintiff] has alleged that the purchases were made on his behalf." 295 F.3d at 324 (emphasis added); see id. at 323 . 10 . Plaintiffs’ citation to SEC v. Zandford,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that purchaserseller requirement is met where plaintiff adequately alleges that the broker bought physical stock on his behalf and for his account emphasis added
B. holding in an age discrimination case that even though a plaintiff need not revisit his prima facie case after a trial on the merits he still must show that he has met his ultimate burden of proving that the employer terminated him because of age emphasis added
C. holding that an application is  pending from the time it is first filed  emphasis added
D. holding that bank was equitably estopped from recovering against stock broker for conversion of stock certificates that were assigned in blank and that broker had sold for a bank employee who misappropriated the stock certificates from the bank
E. holding that the first grable requirement was met where the plaintiff in order to prevail on his legal malpractice claim had to show that he would have prevailed on his claim under federal patent law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.