Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
context, that courts should not “penaliz[e] diligent counsel who has employed [§ 220] ... in a deliberate and thorough manner in preparing a eom-plaint[.]” Rales v. Blasband, 634 A.2d 927, 934 n.10 (Del. 1993) (applying the “first to file” rule for derivative litigation); see also Technicorp, 2000 WL 713750, at *9 n.26 (“[A]ccept[ing] ... [Defendants’ time-bar argument would penalize, not encourage, the use of those important tools.”). But a rale that automatically forbade tolling once a party had inquiry notice would do just that. Indeed, if a shareholder has enough suspicion of wrongdoing to file a successful § 220 action, then there is some probability that the shareholder also has inqifiry notice. See, Sec. First Corp. v. U.S. Die Casting & Dev. Co., 687 A.2d 563, 567 (Del. 1997) . The District Court’s categorical exception
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that to institute a proper  220 action to investigate fraud the plaintiff must demonstrate a credible basis to find probable wrongdoing
B. holding that in the context of a settlement contract the defrauded party may either 1 rescind the settlement or 2 ratify the settlement retain the proceeds and institute an action to recover fraud damages
C. holding that the plaintiffshareholders demonstrated a credible basis for its  220 claim tjhrough the testimony of their two trial witnesses and the documents introduced as evidence regarding the actions of the corporations board of directors through evidence of suspicious expense figures
D. holding that once probable cause is established officer is not required to investigate further
E. holding that knowledge of a credible report from a single credible eyewitness can be sufficient to demonstrate probable cause for a warrantless arrest
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.