Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
rather than among investors.” (citing Brodt v. Bache & Co., 595 F.2d 459 (9th Cir.1978)), rev’d on other grounds, 904 F.2d 918 (4th Cir.1990) (per curiam); Waterman v. Alta Verde Indus., Inc., 643 F.Supp. 797, 803 n. 6 (E.D.N.C.1986) (“A common enterprise exists where the fortunes of the investor are interwoven with and dependent upon the efforts of and success of the party seeking the investment or of a third party.” (citing SEC v. Continental Commodities Corp., 497 F.2d 516, 522 (5th Cir.1974)), aff'd, 833 F.2d 1006 (4th Cir.1987) (table). Other courts, although not directly addressing the issue whether vertical commonality alone is sufficient, have indicated which approach to vertical commonality they follow. See In re EPIC Mortgage Ins. Litig., 701 F.Supp. 1192, 1248 (E.D.Va.1988) , aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a person who obtains drugs from a seller is not an accomplice of the seller
B. holding that there was no common venture where the fortunes of the purchasers were not tied to the fortunes of the seller
C. holding that breach occurred when seller told buyer that seller would do no more to rectify alleged warranty violation
D. holding that the seller of a business implicitly transferred a property right in the firms good will to the buyer and that the seller could not then impair that right by actively soliciting the customers of his former business
E. holding that the owner of the land could not bring a 93a action against a prior owner of the land who was not the seller because there was no business connection between the two parties
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.