Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a provision that appeared in the certificate of incorporation. Stroud v. Milliken Enters., 585 A.2d 1306, 1308 (Del.Ch.1988), appeal dismissed, 552 A.2d 476 (Del.1989). In light of the three procedural means for ending a director’s term in Section 141(b), I do not believe a bylaw could impose a requirement that would disqualify a director and terminate his service. Rohe v. Reliance Training Network, Inc., 2000 WL 1038190, at *12 (Del.Ch. July 21, 2000). Section 141(b)’s recognition of the bylaws as a locus for director qualifications instead contemplates reasonable qualifications to be applied at the front end, before a director’s term commences, when the director is “elected and qualified.” 8 Del. C. § 141(b); see Triplex Shoe Co. v. Rice & Hutchins, Inc., 152 A. 342, 351 (Del.1930) . The concept of a bylaw that would end a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that although wade hearing may be constitutionally mandated under certain circumstances it is not mandated in all cases
B. holding that the transfer of stock in an insolvent corporation did not constitute fair consideration to support conveyance of property to its stockholder
C. holding that a shareholder had standing to bring a direct action against a director of a corporation because the director owed the shareholder a duty separate and apart from that which the director owed to the company
D. holding under the 1898 act that neither the debtor nor its property was involved in stock ownership dispute
E. holding that bylaw requiring a director to be a stockholder mandated stock ownership pri or to entering office
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.