Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and anti-competitive effects. For this reason, such restraints generally are not deemed per se illegal, but, rather, are tested under a rule of reason analysis. See Business Elecs. Corp. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 485 U.S. 717, 723, 108 S.Ct. 1515, 99 L.Ed.2d 808 (1988). Vertical price-fixing agreements, however, are a special subset of vertical restraints. As such, they qualify for different treatment. A vertical price-fixing agreement that establishes a minimum price normally is regarded as a naked restraint of trade and, thus, as illegal per se. See Business Elecs. Corp., 485 U.S. at 724, 108 S.Ct. 1515; Dr. Miles Med. Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373, 404-09, 31 S.Ct. 376, 55 L.Ed. 502 (1911); cf. State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 22, 118 S.Ct. 275, 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997) . Here, the district court concluded that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a maximum vertical price maintenance scheme is not per se illegal
B. holding vertical price restraints are judged according to the rule of reason
C. holding such agreements to be per se illegal
D. holding that the per se rule does not apply to a vertical agreement between a buyer and supplier and noting that precedent limits the per se rule in the boycott context to cases involving horizontal agreements among direct competitors
E. holding vertical price restraints subject to the rule of reason
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.