Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
which reported a total drawdown of 639,312 tons over the three-year period 2009-2011, for an average of 213,104 annually, which is much closer to the 2010 Dynamic Report than the SEC filings. Id. ¶ 47(g). These two sets of facts are mostly ignored by defendants, who instead train their fire on what they label the “only allegation in this regard,” which is that “some unnamed ‘Henan L & R Dept Staff supposedly said that noncompliance with' Chinese mining regulations would create ‘significant risks, liabilities, and penalties.’ ” Defs.’ Mem. 9 (citing Am. Compl. ¶¶ 29, 30.). Defendants argue that under the test of Novak v. Kasaks, 216 F.3d 300 (2d Cir.2000), this confidential witness is insufficiently identified to support an inference of personal knowledge. See Novak, 216 F.3d at 314 . But even if defendants are correct that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a fraudulent transfer complaint need only set forth the facts with sufficient particularity to apprise the defendant fairly of the charges made against him
B. holding that in the absence of public disclosure the court need not address whether relator was original source of the information
C. holding that a person violates  10b and rule 10b5 when he misappropriates confidential information  in breach of a duty owed to the source of the information
D. holding that fraud claims were wrongfully dismissed for insufficient particularity as they provided sufficient notice of the facts of the alleged misconduct
E. holding that confidential sources need not be named provided they are described in the complaint with sufficient particularity to support the probability that a person in the position occupied by the source would possess the information alleged
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.