Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
12 . “[A] rule which would require the Union to divine the legal complexities of the contractual relationship on a construction site, at the risk of committing an unfair labor practice, would be unfair and unrealistic.” J.F. Hoff Electric Co., 642 F.2d at 1274. 13 . The statute provides a cause of action to “[w]hoever shall be injured in his business or property by reason of any violation of [section 8(b)(4)].” Once again, however, the courts have declined to give a literal meaning to the words of the statute, and in this context have set far more restrictive “standing” requirements than the statutory language, taken alone, would support. See Fulton v. Plumbers & Steamfitters, 695 F.2d 402 (9th Cir.1982), petition for cert. filed, 51 U.S.L.W. 3775 (U.S., March 25, 1983) (No. 82-1678) . The issue of whether or not David Butler,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that courts should look to the standing principles  developed under section 4 of the clayton act for guidance in interpreting section 303s standing requirements id at 406 for a recent discussion of standing under the clayton act see associated general contractors v california state council of carpenters us 103 sct 897 74 led2d 723 1983
B. holding that standing to raise a claim under  2a of robinsonpatman act is derived from section 4 of the clayton act
C. recognizing that  1404a allows for the transfer of clayton act suits
D. holding that the lack of shareholder standing under texas law does not implicate constitutional standing
E. holding that standing existed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.