Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the ordinary course of the business of the partnership.” N.Y.Ptnrship L. § 24. The liability of any partner is limited to wrongful acts occurring “while the defendant was a partner”, Halperin v. Edwards and Hanly, 430 F.Supp. 121, 125 (E.D.N.Y.1977). Thus, before a defendant may be found liable for the acts of his partners it must be found: (1) that the partner committed the acts at issue in the ordinary course of the business of the partnership and (2) that the defendant was a partner at the time the acts were committed. Because the nature of their liability is joint and several, it has been held that a partner is not an indispensible party in an action naming other partners or the partnership as parties defendant. See Cone Mills Corp. v. Hurdle, 369 F.Supp. 426, 438 (N.D.Miss.1974) . Instead, it has been held that a plaintiff
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that joint and several liability for entire actual loss could have been imposed on each fraud defendant as condition of probation
B. recognizing that where liability is joint and several among multiple parties complete relief may be granted with respect to any one of them
C. recognizing forfeiture liability among criminal confederates to be joint and several
D. holding that a lump sum verdict on punitive damages against all defendants was improper since there can be no joint and several liability or contribution
E. holding that all partners are not indispensible parties defendant where state law provides for partners joint and several liability
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.