Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
There was no further communication between the parties until Ryerson filed this lawsuit on June 10, 2009. Meanwhile, the EMC action settled pursuant to a 2002 agreement that provided EMC with an 8.5 million dollar “post-closing price adjustment to the Stock Purchase Agreement ... reflecting a change in the purchase price paid by EMC to Ryerson for the purchase and sale of IEMC.” The settlement was later reported in Ryerson’s 2003 Form 10-K as a “selling price adjustment to the 1998 sale of [IEMC].” FIC moves for summary judgment, citing Seventh Circuit precedent, arguing that the 8.5 million dollar “price adjustment” was restitution for ill-gotten gains and therefore not an insurable “loss” under Illinois law. Level 3 Comms. v. Federal Ins. Co., 272 F.3d 908, 910-11 (7th Cir.2001)(citing cases). In response to FIC’s motion,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding breach of best execution duty is a material misrepresentation in connection with the purchase or sale of the securities
B. holding that a policyholder does not incur an insurable loss when it is compelled to return allegedly illgotten gains in connection with the purchase or sale of a company
C. holding that slusa preempts claims which allege a material misrepresentation or omission in connection with the purchase or sale of securities whether or not that allegation is an element of or otherwise necessary to the putative state claim
D. holding that slusas in connection with prong extends to misrepresentations that are material to the purchase or sale of a covered security
E. holding that a claim arises from the purchase or sale of a security only if there is an allegation of fraud in the purchase sale or issuance of the  instrument
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.