Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and the legitimate justifications provided for the challenged practice, and we determine whether the anti-competitive aspects of the challenged practice outweigh its procompetitive effects.” (footnote omitted and emphasis added)); Eleventh Circuit: U.S. Anchor Mfg., Inc. v. Rule Indus., Inc., 7 F.3d 986, 1001 (11th Cir. 1993) ("The elements of a conspiracy to monopolize under Section 2 are (1) an agreement to restrain trade, (2) deliberately entered into with the specific intent of achieving a monopoly rather than a-legitimate business purpose, (3) which could have had an anticompetitive effect, and (4) the commission of at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy,''); D.C. Circuit: Caribbean Broad. Sys., Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless PLC, 148 F.3d 1080, 1087 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ; Fed. Circuit: Intergraph Corp. v. Intel
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding ban violated the sherman act
B. holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction and subjectmatter jurisdiction is essential to courts authority to hear case
C. holding that same activity violated  2 of the sherman act
D. holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act
E. holding within discussion on courts subjectmatter jurisdiction that a wouldbe monopolist or member of a conspiracy to monopolize comes within the condemnation of the sherman act when it engages in anticompetitive conduct  quoting spectrum sports 506 us at 456 113 sct 884
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.