Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on speculation and conclusory allegations.’ ”) (citations omitted). Though Arco has contended that it has averred facts relevant to scienter, calling Deutsche Bank’s arguments “disingenuous” and “laughable” and claiming that Deutsche Bank “ignores the allegations” (Opp. Br. at 21-22), scienter cannot be pleaded merely by describing with rhetorical flourish the deal structure and mechanics of the transactions, when those matters were disclosed to Arco in detail. (Mov. Br. at 7-8 (citing Exs. 2-5, 8-11,14-17), 16-17, 21.) Finally, the FAC must establish reliance. Under Rule 10b-5, Arco must allege reliance on allegedly deceptive acts of which it was aware. See, e.g., Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta Inc., 552 U.S. 148, 161, 171, 128 S.Ct. 761, 169 L.Ed.2d 627 (2008) ; Mills v. Polar Molecular Corp., 12 F.3d at
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that acts of promissory fraud  which require proof that the defendants intended not to perform promised acts  were not protected by stateagent immunity
B. holding that acts occurring thirteen years before the acts in the instant case were not too remote given the similarity of the offenses
C. holding deceptive acts which were not disclosed to the investing public are too remote to satisfy the requirement of reliance because a plaintiff cannot rely on acts of which it is unaware
D. holding that the acts of a corporate officer done in his or her official capacity are acts of the corporation
E. holding that the government cannot rely upon affidavits not attached to the warrant itself to satisfy the particularity requirement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.