Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(Tex. App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. denied) (internal citation omitted); Natho v. Shelton, No. 03-11-00661-CV, 2014 WL 2522051, at *2 (Tex.App.-Austin May 30, 2014, no. pet. h.) ("When a fiduciary intentionally breaches his duty by self-dealing and thereby gaining a benefit for himself, willful and fraudulent acts are presumed.”). Thus, under Texas law, Whitting-ton’s intent is likely presumed as a matter of law. 13 . Some courts, noting that it could be difficult to "prove a negative” — that is, to prove reliance on facts that were not disclosed— have focused their inquiry on whether the concealed information was material, that is, whether it would have affected decision-making had it been disclosed, a standard plainly met here. See Titan Grp. v. Faggen, 513 F.2d 234, 239 (2d Cir.1975) ; see also Apte v. Japra (In re Apte), 96 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding in securities law context that in cases involving nondisclosure of material facts  materiality rather than reliance  becomes the decisive element of causation
B. holding that reliance is not an element to be proven under securities fraud in indiana
C. holding that such information is not material under securities law
D. holding in a securities fraud action that a court may only find the lack of materiality where a jury could not reasonably find materiality
E. holding that reliance is not a required element of securities fraud in a state enforcement action in idaho
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.