Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(Golden Pacific). The Federal Circuit held in Golden Pacific that bank seizures do not constitute regulatory takings under the Fifth Amendment, because investors in banks do not have a reasonable investment-backed expectation that regulators will not seize banks that are deemed to be in trouble. Id. at 1074 (“Given the highly regulated nature of the banking industry, ... the [federal regulators’ seizure of the bank] could not possibly have interfered with a reasonable investment-backed expectation on the part of Golden Pacific.”). The principle that a bank seizure does not provide the basis for a valid takings claim in this court is set forth in numerous eases in this circuit, and remains good law. See, e.g., Cal. Hous. Sec., Inc. v. United States, 959 F.2d 955, 958 (Fed.Cir.1992) ; Castle v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 187, 220
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the bank liable where the bank had almost complete control over the operation of the company during its last three quarters of operation and where withheld taxes were not paid to the irs on instructions from the bank
B. holding the use of deadly force standing alone does not constitute a seizure and absent an actual physical restraint or physical seizure the alleged unreasonableness of the officers conduct cannot serve as a basis for a  1983 cause of action
C. holding that the seizure and subsequent liquidation of the bank in question cannot constitute a physical fifth amendment taking because neither the bank nor its owner could have developed a historically rooted expectation of compensation for such a seizure
D. recognizing that a bank customer may have a tort claim against a bank for the wrongful dishonor of a check
E. holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.