Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
inherent powers are shielded from direct democratic controls, they must be exercised with restraint and discretion.’ ” (Citation omitted.)). The Teamsters court recognized that a particularized showing of bad faith is required to justify the use of the court’s inherent power, and stated that we have declined to uphold awards under the bad-faith exception absent both clear evidence that the challenged actions are entirely without color, and are taken for reasons of harassment or delay or for other improper purposes and a high degree of specificity in the factual findings of the lower courts. Id. (quoting Oliveri v. Thompson, 803 F.2d 1265, 1272 (2d Cir.1986) (citations, internal brackets, and internal quotations marks omitted)); see also Kukui Nuts, 6 Haw.App. at 436, 726 P.2d at 272 . Although it is well-settled that “[a]n
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding motion for attorneys fees was necessary predicate
B. holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees
C. holding that the court of appeals erred in modifying the judgment to include attorneys fees when the trial courts refusal to grant attorneys fees was not the subject of a point of error
D. holding that a necessary precedent to any sanction of attorneys fees under the courts inherent powers was the finding that the attorneys conduct constituted or was tantamount to bad faith citation omitted
E. holding that a finding of plaintiffs bad faith is not a prerequisite to the trial courts exercise of discretion to award fees
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.