Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in increasing premiums for minority stockholders in merger freeze-outs, compared to tender offer freezeouts effected without special committees); James F. Cotter, Anil Shivdasani, & Marc Zenner, Do Independent Directors Enhance Target Shareholder Wealth During Tender Offers?, 43 J. of Fin. Econ. 195 (1997) (finding that, in the context of a tender offer, the presence of an independent board increases the tender offer bid premium and overall stockholder gains). 45 .Such an approach might also provide incentives for a controlling stockholder to proceed by means of a tender offer to the minority stockholders, and thus potentially avoid the need to actively negotiate with a special committee. See generally In re Siliconix Inc. S’holders Litig., 2001 WL 716787 (Del. Ch. June 19, 2001) ; but see In re Cox Commc’ns, Inc. S’holders
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the use of fund assets to fend off a hostile tender offer since made without sufficient inquiry into the facts constitutes a violation of the fiduciary standards under erisa
B. holding under its reading of solomon v pathe commcns corp 672 a2d 35 del1996 and other similar cases that a goingprivate tender transaction made by way of a tender offer is not subject to entire fairness review
C. recognizing further that the offer of proof allows the aggrieved party to present a proper record for review on appeal and in the absence of such an offer error may not be preserved
D. holding that rule 14e3 by its terms does not require that the offender know or have reason to know that the information relates to a tender offer
E. holding that rule of proportionality applies only under a1 and what is now a2d
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.