Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
with respect to Direct and October. Ms. Goren alleges that Direct and October knew that there was “no basis” for certain statements on Dr. Wallach’s tape (“Dead Doctors Don’t Lie”), R.21 ¶ 32, that unspecified misrepresentations regarding New Vision products appear in “free literature published and/or distributed” by Direct, R.21 ¶ 63, and that Direct and October “conducted or participated in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise [New Vision]” through a pattern of racketeering activity. R.21 ¶¶ 110 & 118. These conclusory allegations fail to specify the time, place and content of any of the misrepresentations attributed to these defendants and therefore fall short of the particularity demanded by Rule 9(b). See Robin v. Arthur Young & Co., 915 F.2d 1120, 1127 (7th Cir.1990) , cert. denied, 499 U.S. 923, 111 S.Ct. 1317
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that rule 9bs heightened pleading requirement applies to allegations of mail and wire fraud used as predicate acts for a rico claim
B. holding that the plaintiffs failed to meet rule 9bs particularity requirement where they did not present any evidence at an individualized transactional level
C. holding that allegations against nondiverse defendants must be factual not conclusory because conclusory allegations do not state a claim
D. holding that the concerns that require fraud to be pleaded with particularity are even more urgent in a civil rico action
E. holding that plaintiffs must provide more than conclusory allegations to satisfy rule 9bs requirement that circumstances of fraud be pleaded with particularity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.