Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
without legal citation or factual evidence does not suffice to create a disputed issue of fact as to whether Form 10 was the proper form for the spin-off. Indeed, the SEC had a factual basis for rejecting the Form 10 because there was a sale of a restricted security within two years. SeraNova’s prompt and lamb-like obeisance to the SEC’s decision to require a Form S-l is strong proof that the Form 10 was the wrong document. Moreover, SeraNova brought the same bulletin to the SEC’s attention on March 17, 2000, and the SEC responded that it disagreed with SeraNova’s interpretation of the bulletin. Thus, SeraNova is left with the tenuous argument that the SEC misinterpreted its own bulletin. Cf. Sec. and Exch. Comm’n v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813, 122 S.Ct. 1899, 1903, 153 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) . On the issue of whether the content of the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that bias interpretation of immigration law is entitled to deference except where the interpretation is clearly contrary to the plain and sensible meaning of the statute
B. holding that agency interpretation which is reasonable is entitled to deference
C. holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference
D. holding that deference is owed to state agencys interpretation of state law
E. holding that sec interpretation of federal securities law is entitled to deference if it is reasonable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.