Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the corporation and hardly ever harm it.” Post at 893. But the dissent offers no support for this broad proposition, and we do not agree that this is a valid assumption. The dissent confuses the corporation’s interests with the individual interests of its majority shareholders. But a corporate officer or director’s duty is to the corporation and its shareholders collectively, not any individual shareholder or subgroup of shareholders, even if that subgroup represents a majority of the ownership. See, e.g., Redmon, 202 S.W.3d at 233; Somers, 295 S.W.3d at 11; Lindley, 349 S.W.3d at 124; Hoggett, 971 S.W.2d at 488. We do not determine the best interest of the corporation by examining only the interest of its majority shareholder^). See Holloway v. Skinner, 898 S.W.2d 793, 797 (Tex.1995) . Refusal to pay dividends, paying majority
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding majority shareholder liable when he used his control of the board for the malicious purpose of  preventing dividends and otherwise lowering the value  of the stock of the minority shareholders
B. holding that a corporate officer acting in his or her official capacity could not tortiously interfere with a corporate contract because corporations act only through their officers and agents
C. holding that corporate officer and majority shareholder could be held liable for acting in a manner that served his interests at the expense of the other shareholders because his interests and the corporations were not necessarily aligned
D. holding that majority shareholders had legitimate business reasons for terminating a shareholder which included the reason that the shareholder was not working well with other employees
E. recognizing distinction between corporate officer acting on behalf of himself and corporate officer acting on behalf of his corporation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.