Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
giving rise to their complaint occurred. 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1309, at 696 (2d ed.1990). In some cases, however, the substantive na ture of the lawsuit and the general rules of pleading require the plaintiff to allege when defendant’s illegal acts occurred. Id. Significantly, courts have required that a plaintiff plead time when the events in question spanned a number of years and when the date plaintiff discovered his injury appeared to be remote in time. See, e.g., Bankest Imports, Inc. v. ISCA Corporation, 717 F.Supp. 1537 (S.D.Fla.1989) (requiring a more definite statement of time and place where events underlying breach of contract claim spanned seven years); Stewart Coach Indus., Inc. v. Moore, 512 F.Supp. 879 (D.Ohio 1981) . A claim that the applicable statute of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiffs did not plead fraud where the complaint only alleged a breach of fiduciary duty
B. holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud
C. holding that the time of discovery of fraud is not a proper matter for summary judgment
D. recognizing that the risk of fraud or corruption is more remote at the petition stage of an initiative than at the time of balloting
E. holding that a plaintiff has a duty to plead the date of discovery of fraud where the alleged fraud apparently occurred at a remote time
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.