Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(2001). 1 16 To the contrary, D-Mil cites Williams v. Cont'l Constr., Corp., 1984 OK 887, 34 P.2d 254 and title 52, sections 2 , 3 , 7 , and 26 , of the Oklahoma Statutes, contending that, under Williams, because it has complied with Oklahoma's general corporation laws and accepted the Oklahoma Corporation Commission's rules, regulations and applicable statutes, D-Mil is entitled to exercise eminent domain across Landowner's land to market gas from a well it operates. And, no statute requires D-Mil to be specifically designated as or become a "pipeline company." We disagree. 17 D-Mil correctly notes that a pipeline company is not expressly required to be named as such. See eg. Mo.-Kan.-Tex.R. Co. v. State, 1985 OK 108, 11 85, 712 P.2d 40, 46; French v. Ayres, 1949 OK 88, 207 P.2d 308 . Under title 52, a company's business name is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service
B. holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation
C. holding that directors of a whollyowned corporation could consider the interests of the parent company as well as the interests of their corporation because there was only one substantive interest to be protected
D. holding public service corporation obligated to furnish service to each patron at same price charged to other patrons for substantially similar service
E. recognizing a pipeline company as a public service corporation even though it was not expressly named as such
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.