Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Terny from receiving advancements. The “right to advaneement does not go away simply because the entity from which advancement is sought is alleging that the [defendant] has committed perfidious acts against it.” DeLucca, 2006 WL 224058, at *11. However, Confederate argues that Terny is not entitled to any advances since he has not been sued as a director, but rather in his capacity as a shareholder or consultant. (PI. Opp. at 3). While this argument may limit the scope of work for which Terny is entitled to advancement, it does not eliminate the right to advancements in their entirety- Terny is only entitled to seek advancement of those fees incurred in connection with proceedings which are “by reason of the fact” that he was a director of Confederate. See Homestore, 888 A.2d at 214 . In addition, “all contracts providing for the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a nexus between the corporate officers or directors official activity and the matter for which indemnification is sought must be shown though no more than a nexus whether a nexus exists is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court considering all the circumstances surrounding the proposed indemnification
B. holding that the acts of a corporate officer done in his or her official capacity are acts of the corporation
C. holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury
D. holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office
E. recognizing the need for a nexus or causal connection between the claim against the officer and onces official corporate capacity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.