Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
as a purchaser. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 112 S.Ct. 2130,119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)(noting that injury-in-fact is a constitutional minimum). Thus, to prove constitutional standing, a plaintiff must show that it has suffered a cognizable “injury-in-fact” that has been caused by the defendant and is redressable by the court. See generally, Nulankeyutmonen Nkihtaqmikon v. Impson, 503 F.3d 18, 26-27 (1st Cir.2007); Nisselson v. Lernout, 469 F.3d 143, 150 (1st Cir.2006). BPI Global has satisfied that requirement here by showing that it took on investment risk as general partner for several of the very funds it managed. Whether less would be sufficient to satisfy the Constitutional minimum is a question I need n er, Peabody & Co., Inc., 604 F.Supp. 764, 767 (D.C.Mo.1985) . Although the First Circuit has not to date
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a a representative plaintiff acts as fiduciary for the others requiring the representative to act in the best interest of class
B. holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes
C. holding that a purchaser for the purposes of  12a2 includes a representative or an agent for a purchaser
D. recognizing that authorized representative may be general or only for a certain claim
E. holding that a party waived the right to allege contrary facts on appeal eg that defendant was not an agent or instrumentality of the mexican government for sovereign immunity purposes where the party alleged that the defendant was an agent or instrumentality in its complaint
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.