Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“actively endeavor[] to ensure compliance” with the FLSA. Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 339 F.3d 894, 910 (9th Cir.2003), cert. granted on different issue, 2005 WL 405752 (2005); see also Herman, 172 F.3d at 142; Bankston v. Illinois, 60 F.3d 1249, 1255 (7th Cir.1995); Williams v. Tri-County Growers, Inc., 747 F.2d 121, 129 (3d Cir.1984). If the employer fails to show good faith, an award of liquidated damages is mandatory, even if the court finds that the employer did not act willfully. Cox v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 919 F.2d 354, 357 (9th Cir.1990). In Alvarez the court held that the employer’s “ex post explanations” for why it did not take affirmative steps to ensure compliance were insufficient to demonstrate good faith. Alvarez, 339 F.3d at 910; see also First Citizens, 758 F.2d at 403 . In Bratt, by contrast, the employer had a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the employers bald assertions that the officers thought that they were in compliance with the act did not satisfy the good faith requirement
B. holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient
C. holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act
D. holding that evidence was admissible under the good faith exception where the affidavit contained a detailed description of the nature of the offense the premises to be searched the items for which they were searching and the transaction which led the informant to believe that the drugs would be in this apartment
E. holding that plaintiffs did not satisfy particularity requirement where plaintiffs assertions were based in part on the statements of unnamed former employees
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.