Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
between majority and minority shareholders in closely held companies that would apply to every transaction. See, e.g., Allen v. Devon Energy Holdings, L.L.C., 867 S.W.3d 355, 391 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, judgm’t set aside by arg.) (op. on reh’g). Texas courts have, however, recognized that an informal fiduciary duty may exist between the shareholders in a closely held corporation, depending on the circumstances. See generally Willis v. Donnelly, 199 S.W.3d 262, 277 (Tex.2006); Miller v. Miller, 700 S.W.2d 941, 945-46 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1985, writ ref d n.r.e.) (stating that shareholders’ intimate knowledge of company’s affairs supported finding a fiduciary relationship); Tuck v. Miller, 483 S.W.2d 898, 905 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1972, writ ref d n.r.e.) (op. on reh’g) ; see also Allen, 367 S.W.3d at 391
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that superior business expertise among other factors supported a finding of a confidential relationship
B. holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record
C. recognizing that among other factors the location and level of the precedent as well as its age are important factors in a qualified immunity analysis
D. holding lab report properly admitted as business record supported finding of violation of probation
E. holding substantial evidence supported jury finding of abuse of process
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.