Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
not, plead an antitrust injury causally linked to Andrx’s alleged anticom-petitive behavior. Andrx Pharm., Inc. v. Friedman, 83 F.Supp.2d 179, 185-87 (D.D.C.2000) (“Court cannot find that Bio-vail can establish that it has suffered ‘antitrust injury.’ ”). On February 2, 2000 Bio-vail moved for reconsideration under FRCP 60(b) and on February 4, 2000 it filed a notice of appeal (No. 00-5050). The district court subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration and Biovail noticed its appeal of that decision (No. 00-5396) on November 3, 2000. This court granted Biovail’s motion to consolidate the appeals. III. Analysis We give de novo review to a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. See NRA v. Reno, 216 F.3d 122, 126 (D.C.Cir.2000); see also Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1507 (9th Cir.1997) . “The complaint should not be dismissed unless
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo
B. holding that whether consent was valid under the fourth amendment is a question of law to be reviewed de novo
C. holding that the threshold question of whether to adopt a doctrine is reviewed de novo
D. holding the ultimate question of probable cause should be reviewed de novo
E. holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.