Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
nothing to segregate. Indeed, finding of fact 13 indicates that the trial court believed that some fees were reasonable and necessary. See Finding of Fact 13 (stating “the majority of those fees [requested by Ah’ Routing] were not related to the defense of [the Theft Act] claim”). Further, if the trial court had decided that “$0” was a reasonable and necessary fee for the trial work regardless of the segregation issue, it would not have stated in conclusion of law 7 that the only reason for an appeal as to attorney’s fees is the segregation issue. Under Texas law, if the trial court and a party seeking attorney’s fees disagree over the applicability o erman, 133 S.W.3d 262, 268 (Tex.2004); Gill Sav. Ass’n v. Chair King, Inc., 783 S.W.2d 674, 680 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1989) , modified on other grounds, 797 S.W.2d 31
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the public harm requirement applies to fraudulent inducement claims because the fraud claims arise from related contract claims
B. holding claimant did not have to segregate fees between fraud and contract claims because both claims were based on the same set of facts and circumstances
C. holding that successful swornaccount plaintiff did not have to segregate its attorneys fees for prosecuting its claim from its fees for defending a dtpa counterclaim because the claims arose out of the same transaction and were so interrelated that their prosecution or defense entailed proof or denial of essentially the same facts
D. holding that court may not accept claims of fraud based on speculation
E. holding that because plaintiffs claims were presented as a single claim based on the same facts and based on the same alleged damages multiple awards would be duplicative
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.