Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the new therapies might “negatively impact[]” the sales of certain flea and tick products. (CAC at 92). Plaintiffs say this was too little, too late. It was too little, they argue, because the statement was merely a “benign reference” to the new therapies, insufficient to adequately warn investors. (CAC ¶ 92). It was too late, they suggest, because subsequent SEC filings addressed the competitive potential of the new therapies more thoroughly. However, “Mere allegations that statements in one report should have been made in earlier reports do not make out a claim of securities fraud.” Acito v. IMCERA Group, Inc., 47 F.3d 47, 53 (2d Cir.1995) (defendants’ lack of clairvoyance simply does not constitute securities fraud), citing Denny v. Barber, 576 F.2d 465, 470 (2d Cir.1978) ; DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627-28
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that failure to predict future law or to anticipate arguments that blossomed after trial is not a basis for ineffective assistance of counsel claims
B. holding that defendants failure to anticipate future events did not constitute securities fraud
C. holding that reliance is not an element to be proven under securities fraud in indiana
D. holding that even assuming that the defendants attorney had misadviced the client that his previous convictions could not be used to enhance future sentences njeither the court nor counsel is required to anticipate a defendants future recidivism 
E. holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.