Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by Fort Worth officials. The court presumes good faith on the part of the procurement officers at the Corps’ Baltimore District Office, absent proof to the contrary. See T & M Distribs., Inc. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1279, 1285 (Fed.Cir.1999) (“[G]overnment officials are presumed to act in good faith, and ‘it requires ... proof to induce a court to abandon the presumption of good faith.’ ” (quoting Kalvar Corp. v. United States, 211 Ct.Cl. 192, 198, 543 F.2d 1298 (1976))). While that presumption may have been shaken by the whistleblower letter related to the actions of the Fort Worth District Office, nothing indicates that officials of the Baltimore District Office have been tainted in the same way. See Chapman Law Firm Co. v. Greenleaf Constr. Co., 490 F.3d 934, 940 (Fed.Cir.2007) . Given the removal of authority from the Fort
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that while the creditor has the initial burden to produce some evidence of lack of good faith the ultimate burden is on the debtor to prove his good faith
B. holding that if corrective action is reasonable the court is required to assume that the government will carry out the corrective action in good faith
C. holding failure to take action may have some bearing on good faith
D. holding that this court is required to assume that the jury followed the limiting instructions given by the district court
E. holding that beneficiaries of an alleged will may recover reasonable expenses and attorneys fees when defending a will in good faith
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.