Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
91 (D.N.J.1990). The statute of limitations will be tolled, however, where the defendant affirmatively conceals the facts that would allow plaintiff to realize that a cause of action exists. See Plain v. Flicker, 645 F.Supp. 898, 902-03 (D.N.J.1986). Active concealment tolls the statute of limitations until the plaintiff exercising reasonable diligence knows or should know of the fraud. See id. To determine whether an employer’s affirmative misrepresentations on monthly ERISA reports tolls the statute of limitations for a fund or trustee’s suit against the employer for deficient ERISA contributions, the Court must assess whether the deficiencies were apparent from the face of the reports. See, e.g., Sheet Metal Workers, Local 19 v. 2300 Group, Inc., 949 F.2d 1274, 1282-83 (3d Cir.1991) ; Connors v. Beth Energy Mines, Inc., 920 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there is no first amendment right of access to presentence reports
B. holding tolling appropriate where no aspect of reports should have alerted plaintiffs to irregularities
C. holding annexation ordinance only voidable due to procedural irregularities
D. holding that whether the judgment creditor had reason to know or might have been alerted to circumstances that should reasonably have impelled him to check beyond the filed record is irrelevant  
E. holding that  2244d is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.