Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” 355 U.S. at 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99. Heeding this mandate, some prevailing case law inclined to the pleading leniency Conley demanded. In securities fraud cases, despite the particularity required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) for averments constituting the circumstances of the fraud asserted and the scienter requirement Hochfelder propounded, some courts permitted generalized pleadings or relaxed specificity of the requisite fraudulent intent to survive motions to dismiss, relying for authority on the language of Rule 9(b) itself, which provides that “malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind, may be averred generally”. See In re GlenFed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541, 1547 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc) ; see also Cosmas, 886 F.2d at 12 (noting that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that court may satisfy factual basis requirement by examining presentence report
B. holding that plaintiff may satisfy the state of mind pleading requirement simply by saying that scienter existed
C. holding the pslra standard for pleading scienter is more stringent than the second circuits standard prior to the act and that motive and opportunity is not an independent basis to show defendants had scienter
D. holding that financial gain from compensation for professional services is not a sufficient motive for purposes of pleading scienter
E. holding that petitioners allegation that it is the owner of adjoining property does not satisfy the pleading requirement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.