Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
intend the Bankruptcy Code to extend to Puerto Rico”); cf. Cohen, 523 U.S. at 221-22, 118 S.Ct. 1212 (explaining that the Code is not to be construed "to erode past bankruptcy practice absent a clear indication that Congress intended such a departure”); Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1932, 1939, 191 L.Ed.2d 911 (2015) (describing the Code’s expansion of power given to courts adjudicating bankruptcy cases). Even so, this omission and others in the Code's early years led to at least some ambiguity about the Code's applicability to Puerto Rico. See Lubben, 88 Am. Bankr.L.J. at 572-73 & n. 125 (explaining this was because both the definition of "State” and that of "United States” were absent in the original 1978 Code); see also In re Segarra, 14 B.R. at 872-73 . In addition to the general ambiguity about
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that puerto rico is to be treated like a state for purposes of the sherman antitrust act
B. holding that under rico plaintiff must prove an injury because of violation of statute
C. holding that plaintiffs cannot claim that a conspiracy to violate rico existed if they do not adequately plead a substantive violation of rico
D. holding that the code applied to puerto rico under 48 usc  734
E. holding that equitable relief under rico is available only to the government
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.