Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Lehman Holdings and Aurora admitted that Lehman Bank’s home office had been in Delaware when the loans were bought and resold. Lehman Holdings’ App’x at 782, 1492, 2107, 3062, 3733; Aurora’s App’x at 11; Aurora’s Opening Br. at 11; Lehman Holdings’ Opening Br. at 23. Because L 272, 1298 (11th Cir.1999) (referring to the “principal place of business” as a “term of art”). Regardless of where Lehman Bank’s executives resided or met, all of Lehman Bank’s actions were “subject to direction from the home office” in Delaware. 12 C.F.R. § 545.91(a). With all of the bank’s actions subject to direction from the home office in Delaware, any reasonable fact-finder would have to conclude that Lehman Bank’s principal place of business was in Delaware. See Lehman Bros. Bank, FSB, 937 A.2d at 103-104 . As a result, Lehman Bank is considered a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding delaware is home turf as long as company is incorporated in delaware regardless of location of principal place of business
B. holding that lehman bank had its principal office in delaware rather than new york based in part on lehman banks establishment of its home office in delaware
C. recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole
D. holding that a national bank is a citizen of the state in which its main office as set forth in its articles of association is located
E. holding that even though lehman banks executive officers were in new york and its board of directors met exclusively in new york lehman bank had its principal office in delaware rather than new york because the term principal office is a term of art
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.