Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Roberts Assoc. v. Strauman, 40 N.Y.2d 303, 307, 386 N.Y.S.2d 677, 353 N.E.2d 590 (1976). Such agreements may be justified by the employer’s need to protect itself from unfair competition by former employees. See BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 391, 690 N.Y.S.2d 854, 712 N.E.2d 1220 (1999) provide for any geographic limitations. Plaintiffs introduced no evidence to support the proposition that a covenant restricting competition of the kind at issue in this case, anywhere in the world, is reasonable in terms of scope; nor have Plaintiffs pointed to any cases in this jurisdiction that would support the Court drawing such a conclusion. Indeed, the case law suggests just the opposite. See, e.g., Silipos, Inc. v. Bickel, No. 06 Civ. 2205(RCC), 2006 WL 2265055, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.2006) ; Heartland Sec. Corp. v. Gerstenblatt, No. 99
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a restrictive covenant will be upheld where a franchisor has a protectable interest in the sale of his franchise
B. holding that a roadway is a structure and its construction would violate the restrictive covenant limiting the land to residential purposes
C. holding that a restrictive covenant with a tenyear term was unenforceable
D. holding that the restraint of a covenant not to compete must be reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the particular case and that only a legitimate business interest may be protected by the covenant
E. holding that a restrictive covenant with worldwide restrictions on competition is not reasonable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.