Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to adequately plead an offer to tender the Plan's shares back to Defendants. After briefing on Defendants’ motion, the Court allowed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint which included an offer of tender. Thus, Defendants' argument on that point is moot. 25 . The applicable statute of limitations in this case is governed by § 13 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77m. As discussed in detail infra, § 13 has both a 1-year and 3-year limitations period. Truly, the 3-year period is a statute of repose, not of limitations. P. Stolz Family Partnership L.P. v. Daum, 355 F.3d 92, 99-107 (2d Cir.2004); Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. First RepublicBank Corp., 997 F.2d 39, 52 (5th Cir.1993) (judgment vacated on other grounds); Eureka Homestead Soc. v. Zirinsky, 1995 WL 542482, *2 (E.D.La.1995) . Because the parties have referred to § 13 in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that provision has the characteristics of a statute of repose
B. recognizing that tilas statute of repose acts to limit the clouding of a propertys title
C. holding that statute was one of repose because it embodies the most distinctive characteristic of a statute of repose the barring of the right to bring an action rather than the remedy prescribed
D. holding that statute of repose acts as an outer limit or ceiling within which all suits must be brought
E. holding that the 3year limit is a period of repose
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.