Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Dowling, 459 F.2d 190, 196 (7th Cir.1972); but see Note, Intracorporate Conspiracies Under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(c), 92 Harv.L.Rev. 470 (1978). But this reasoning does not apply at all to a partnership. A corporation is a distinct and fictional legal entity; a partnership is not distinct from its members at all. We decline, therefore, to find that the dictum to the contrary in Clark v. Universal Builders, Inc., 409 F.Supp. 1274, 1279 (N.D. 111.1976), makes the allegation of conspiracy here frivolous. Moreover, it would be anomalous in any case to permit an entity which was established for the very purpose of engaging in a discriminatory act to be insulated, and to insulate its members, from liability as conspirators, by virtue of its establishment. See Dombrowski v. Dowling, 459 F.2d at 196 . Additionally, the State’s pleading that Mrs.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding to that effect with respect to rule 64
B. recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception
C. recognizing exception
D. recognizing that when the corporations management or its shareholders are deadlocked with respect to a particular issue courts have realigned such corporations as party plaintiffs
E. recognizing a similar exception to its rule with respect to corporations
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.