Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that as a matter of law, a parent corporation cannot be a stranger to its subsidiaries’ business or contractual relations, and that no claim can be sustained against a parent for tortious interference with such relations.” Here, while Shekoy occupies the role of subsidiary and not parent, we are persuaded that the interwoven web of business arrangements likewise applies in this context and that Shekoy, as a subsidiary, cannot be a stranger to its parent Yoke’s business relations, which included the relationship between Cellchem and its customers. Therefore, Shekoy, through its parent, had a business relationship with Cellchem and its customers and is not a stranger to that relationship. Perry v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 353 FSupp.2d 1237, 1240-1241 (III) (B) (N.D. Ga. 2005) . While it is clear that the Appellants were
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the tort of wrongful interference with anothers business relations
B. holding that sovereign immunity applies to claims alleging tortious interference with business relations because the tort requires proof of malice
C. holding that the statute of limitations for a claim of tortious interference with contractual relations begins to run when the contract in question has been breached
D. recognizing the supreme court of georgias endorsement in atlanta market center of a line of cases reducing the number of entities against which a claim of tortious interference with business relations may lie and in that context in re hercules and its finding that atlanta market center found that a parent corporation cannot be a stranger to its subsidiaries business or contractual relations
E. holding former employees breach of fiduciary duties to employer satisfies the sturges prerequisites for a claim of tortious interference with prospective business relations
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.