Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
issued shares and options off the market. 3 . Flora asserts that he was somehow less sophisticated than Firepond's representatives and that the lock-up agreement was not the product of negotiation because it was offered on a take it or leave it basis, under the threat that if he refused to sign, the IPO might not go forward. The court finds neither argument persuasive. First, Flora was sophisticated enough to negotiate and perform multimillion dollar business agreements. Second, the court is not convinced that the lock-up agreement, in these circumstances, was a contract of adhesion. Even if it was a contract of adhesion, that fact alone does not create a special duty of care where none otherwise existed. See Vierkant by Johnson v. AMCO Ins. Co., 543 N.W.2d 117, 120 (Minn. Ct.App.1996) ; Safeco, 531 N.W.2d at 871 (not including
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that contingency fee contracts are voidable where attorneys fail to comply with disciplinary rules
B. holding that arbitration provisions that preclude class actions are not unconscionable
C. holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims
D. recognizing the doctrine of unenforceability of unconscionable contracts
E. holding that contracts of adhesion are not voidable unless unconscionable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.