Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
mischaracterize the precedent examining whether such transactions involve securities. Contrary to Defendants’ position that such transactions are analyzed solely as potential investment contracts, the precedent views such agreements as constituting both a note that is potentially a security and an agreement that is a potential investment contract. See, e.g., American Fletcher, 635 F.2d at 1251; Provident Nat. Bank v. Frankford Trust Co., 468 F.Supp. 448, 451 (E.D.Pa.1979). This is the correct approach, but all but one of the eases cited by Defendants applied overruled or outdated law. See Reves, 494 U.S. at 64-65, 110 S.Ct. 945 (adopting “family resemblance” test over “investment-commercial” test for notes); S.E.C. v. Edwards, 540 U.S. 389, 394, 124 S.Ct. 892, 157 L.Ed.2d 813 (2004) . And the one post-1990 case cited by
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiffs express contract with the surety company precludes an implied contract with defendant
B. holding that an investment contract with a fixed return can still be security
C. holding that whether a tic investment could be characterized as a security was a factbased inquiry
D. holding that although a financing statement may be used to assist in the interpretation of the security agreement the financing statement does not create a security interest and cannot extend a security interest beyond what has been unambiguously described in a security agreement
E. holding as an investment for future development
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.