Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that would provide [them] with a reasonable basis for a belief that the key representations in the statements provided to investors” were not misleadin ever, does not end the inquiry. Even though Plaintiffs were not the law firms’ clients, Kutak and Stinson cannot escape liability if, during the course of their work on the Official Statements, they knowingly or recklessly omitted facts that rendered these offering documents false or misleading. Under the Ninth Circuit’s substantial participation test, Kutak and Stinson, as the primary drafters of the language in the Official Statements, had a duty to exercise reasonable care and to disclose relevant facts that undermined the statements that they actually drafted or otherwise prepared. See Homestore.com, 347 F.Supp.2d at 800 . This is so because when Kutak and Stinson
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that statements which put the sources of the defendants revenue at issue gave rise to liability under section 10b because the company failed to disclose the improper conduct that generated that revenue
B. holding that puffing does not give rise to fraud liability under mississippi law
C. holding employer statements of policy can give rise to contractual rights without evidence of mutual agreement
D. holding that an auditor intricately involved in the creation of misstatements and omissions may be liable under  10b even if the statements could not be reasonably attributable to him
E. holding that the creation drafting editing or making of the statements at issue can give rise to liability under  10b
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.