Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Such That Plaintiffs Action is Not Barred The amendments which the Kentucky legislature made to the blue sky statute on June 21, 2001, do not alter the conclusion that plaintiffs claims are barred by the statute of limitations found in the blue sky statute. The plaintiff argues that, even if the three year statute of limitations found in Kentucky’s blue sky statute is applicable to the present action, the June 21, 2001, amendments to the blue sky law extend the statute of limitations so that this action was not untimely filed. In the June 21, 2001, amendments, the legislature changed the timing of when an action under the blue sky statute accrues from the date of the contract of sale to a discovery rule. Cf Cali-Ken Petroleum Co. v. Miller, 815 F.Supp. 216, 219 (W.D.Ky.1993) . The new discovery rule provides that “[n]o
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the time of accrual under the thenexisting version of kentuckys blue sky statute was the date of sale because the legislature had intentionally omitted a discovery rule
B. holding that discovery accrual rule applies to causes of action under michigan law for fraud
C. holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law
D. holding that the cause of action accrued on the date of sale
E. holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.