Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
The judgment is affirmed. All concur. 1 . RSMo Cum.Supp.2004. All other statutory references are to RSMo 2000 unless otherwise noted. 2 . RSMo Cum.Supp.2004. 3 . Citing Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am. v. Hoffa, 242 F.Supp. 246, 253 (D.D.C.1965) ("New York allows a corporation to expend funds in defense of a derivative action presumptively brought in its behalf when some interest of the corporation is threatened."); Fuller v. Am. Mach. & Foundry Co., 91 F.Supp. 710, 711 (S.D.N.Y.1950) ("The corporation can actively defend where the interests of the corporation are threatened with injury by the relief sought in the complaint.”); Leven v. Birrell, 92 F.Supp. 436, 444 (S.D.N.Y.1949); Otis & Co. v. Penn. R.R. Co., 57 F.Supp. 680, 682 (E.D.Penn.1944) ; Esposito v. Riverside Sand & Gravel Co., 287
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that dismissal is proper for a derivative cause of action but not for a direct cause of action
B. recognizing the cause of action
C. recognizing privilege for corporate officers directors and shareholders to influence the actions of their corporation
D. recognizing cause of action
E. holding that corporation can file an answer when the plaintiffs cause of action is such as to endanger rather than advance corporate interests but not where the cause of action is fraud against the corporate directors
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.