Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
business, as well as the source of its revenues. In their motion, Defendants argue that LPI and LPHI are distinguishable entities and that, therefore, the Court should dismiss all of the claims that are based in part on LPI’s business since LPI is not a named Defendant in this case. The' Court disagrees. The record is literally stocked with evidence demonstrating that there is no meaningful difference between LPI and LPHI. For instance, LPI and LPHI share physical offices and have a consolidated Board of Directors. (Dkt. No. 135-4 at 7). Along the same lines, the two companies file consolidated financial statements and LPHI reports on LPI’s litigation in its annual reports.. (Id. at 10). Miller v. MSX-IBS Holding, Inc., No. 09-cv-15046, 2012 WL 458486, at *7 (E.D.Mich. Feb. 13, 2012) . Indeed, even LPHI’s employees and managers do
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiff that was engaged in the business of placement of contract personnel with other entities was required to be licensedregistered under the peaa
B. recognizing that the lien granted is in consideration of one or more loans letters of credit or other financial accommodation made  by jpmc pursuant to the clearance agreement
C. holding a secured creditor has standing to appeal a ruling that impacted its financial interest in collateral
D. holding that consolidated financials are usually necessary for a fair presentation when one of the entities in the consolidated group directly or indirectly has a controlling financial interest in the other entities
E. holding that consolidated cases should be treated as single action for purposes of determining res judicata
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.