Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
always been interpreted to provide for a private right of action. See Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 385-87, 103 S.Ct. 683, 688-90, 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983) (expressly interpreting section 10(b)’s private right of action as consistent with' securities laws’ “broad remedial purposes”). While some courts did not find the requisite congressional intent to infer a private right of action from section 17(a), see Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 574-76, 99 S.Ct. 2479, 2488-89, 61 L.Ed.2d 82 (1979) (legislative intent is the primary factor to consider when addressing whether a private right of action exists), other circuits found no meaningful distinction between section 17(a) and section 10(b). Compare Daniel v. Teamsters, 561 F.2d 1223, 1244-46 (7th Cir.1977) , and SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a private right of action exists
B. recognizing that no private right of action exists for subsection a violations
C. recognizing private right of action
D. holding that erisa creates no private right of action
E. holding that no private right of action exists under any of the provisions of the airport and airway improvement act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.