Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in 2010. In the cases where courts have denied equitable estoppel despite fraud by a fiduciary, the parties have been informed of at least some particulars indicating suspicious or fraudulent behavior. See Etan Indus., Inc. v. Lehmann, 359 S.W.3d 620, 623-24 (Tex.2011) (declining to- apply fraudulent concealment doctrine because plaintiffs were aware of numerous suspicious facts underlying their cause of action); Doe v. Henderson Indep. Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 631, 2000 WL 1701752, at *4-5 (5th Cir.2000) (unpublished) (denying equitable estoppel because plaintiffs were aware of the facts of the injury they suffered even if they did not fully appreciate its practical or legal consequences); KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Housing Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746, 749-50 (Tex.1999) . The case of Thomas v. Barton Lodge II, Ltd.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that loss to bank occurred without regard to its possible remedies when its funds in fact were diverted  through the fraud and dishonesty of its treasurer and that the bank could sue on its bond without proof that it had then sustained some actual defined loss not merely nominal as the result of the transaction in question
B. holding that filing of litigation against the same defendant put a plaintiff on inquiry notice of the probability of fraud with another transaction involving the defendant where the complaints in both lawsuits involved similar allegations that defendant failed to disclose its inadequate loss reserves and did not sufficiently monitor its operations
C. holding once the plaintiff who had filed a fela claim concluded that he was injured and believed the injury was caused by his employment he had a duty to investigate the situation in order to confirm or deny his belief
D. holding in a case where it was not clear whether the plaintiff suffered prejudice from the lack of notice that a plaintiff could not obtain reinstatement based on lack of notice
E. holding that once plaintiff knew it had suffered a large loss caused by the wrongful conduct of another and had sued its fund manager it was on inquiry notice to investigate its auditor as well
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.