Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
shall constitute a waiver of notice of the meeting except where a person attends a meeting for the express purpose of objecting, at the beginning of the meeting, to the transaction of any business because the meeting was not lawfully called or convened”). Therefore, since a shareholder may waive notice by attending a meeting and not objecting, one cannot say that the failure to provide a shareholder with notice of a meeting causes the actions taken at the meeting to be void ab initio. Third, both this Court and our Supreme Court have consistently held that the failure to provide a director with the required notice of a special board meeting renders the actions taken at the meeting voidable — mot void — and thus subject to ratification. See Gordon v. Preston, 1 Watts 385 (Pa.1833) ; Moller v. Keystone Fibre Co., 187 Pa. 553, 41
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the trustee did not have constructive knowledge of an improperly executed mortgage because ohio law provided that an improperly executed mortgage does not provide constructive notice to a subsequent bona fide purchaser
B. holding that corporate president who called and participated in shareholders meeting to elect directors was estopped from questioning the legality of the meeting and election of directors who later removed him
C. holding that a corporation may ratify a mortgage executed by the directors at a special meeting convened without notice
D. holding that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the directors of a corporation 
E. holding that independent directors can be entrusted with the decision to sue other directors on behalf of the corporation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.