Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
they ignored the obvious warning signs of the alleged mispricings by Smirloek of the funds portfolios.” The examples of such “obvious warning signs” provided by Appaloosa and Tepper are: “significant inconsistencies in markets in which Smirloek invested for the funds; significant discrepancies in securities valuations from different dealers for the funds’ portfolio securities; and the substitution of the prices of more valuable securities for those of less valuable securities in the funds’ portfolio valuations.” As further support for their allegation of conscious misbehavior or recklessness, Appaloosa and Tepper contend that the James River Defendants “failed to institute any meaningful systems of internal controls over Smirl 9 CIV. 8761, 2000 WL 977673, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2000) . The Court finds that here, the facts alleged
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that scienter had not adequately been pled where the plaintiffs provided none of the required facts underlying the complaints allegations as to the information that was supposedly available to the individual defendants
B. holding scienter not adequately alleged where the complaint lacked sufficient specificity as to facts regarding how and when defendants received information which they allegedly recklessly ignored
C. holding that single paragraph asserting that plaintiffs based their information and belief on investigation of sec filings analysts reports press releases and discussions with consultants neither provided required facts underlying complaints allegations nor directed court to where facts could be found
D. holding that underlying complaints filed by several plaintiffs all contained express allegations of property damage and that because all complaints arose from the same set of circumstances the allegations in any single complaint can be inferred in the other complaints
E. holding that the plaintiffs failed to allege scienter because in part the amended complaint affords no basis for inferring that the individual defendants would have heard about these whistleblower complaints during the class period
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.