Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
or the lodestar method in calculating fee awards. See Rawlings, 9 F.3d at 516-17; Cardizem, 218 F.R.D. at 532. However, the Sixth Circuit has observed a “trend towards adoption of a percentage of the fund method in [common fund] cases.” Rawlings, 9 F.3d at 515; In re Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc., 398 F.3d 778, 780 (6th Cir.2005); see also § 21D(a)(6) of the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(6) (“Total attorneys’ fees and expenses award by the court to counsel for the plaintiff class shall not exceed a reasonable percentage of the amount of any damages and prejudgment interest actually paid to the class.”) As the court observed in Fournier v. PFS Invs., 997 F.Supp. 828 (E.D.Mich.1998): The lodestar warding 30% fee); Rio Hair, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20440 at *56, 1996 WL 780512at *18 ; In re Visteon Corp. ERISA Litig., No.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge
B. recognizing that the acceptable range of fee awards is 20 to 50 of the common fund
C. holding that attorneys fee award in a common fund case must be  reasonable under the circumstances
D. recognizing that class counsels request for a 10 common fund award is well below the typical 2030 fee awards in class actions
E. recognizing that unit owners own the common elements in fee as tenants in common
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.