Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
failed to establish that Kennedy’s stock sales were “unusual.” As discussed above, Kennedy disclosed all his holdings in the November announcement. The additional 30,000 shares that Kennedy sold in January represented less than 11% of his holdings; after the sale, Kennedy owned approximately 259,000 shares and/or options of IMCERA stock. Further, the complaint failed to allege that any other defendant sold any shares of IMCERA stock during this period. The fact that the other defendants did not sell their shares during the relevant class period undermines plaintiffs’ claim that defendants delayed notifying the public “so that they could sell their stock at a huge profit.” In re Cypress Semiconductor Sec. Litig., Fed.Sec.L.Rep. (CCH) ¶ 97,060, at 94,-697, 1992 WL 394927 (N.D.Cal.1992) . Moreover, it appears that the 30,000 shares
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiffs claims that defendants artificially inflated the companys share price so that they could sell their stock at a huge profit was undermined by the fact that one of the four defendants did not sell his stock during the class period
B. holding that plaintiffs allegations of loss causation complied with dura because they asserted that defendants misrepresentations had caused the value of the shares of stock to become inflated after which the disclosure of the true state of affairs caused the plaintiffs to lose millions of dollars
C. holding that complaint stated a claim under erisa for breach of fiduciary duty of among other things prudence where defendants continued to offer a company stock fund as a pension plan alternative when they knew that the stock price was unlawfully and artificially inflated
D. holding that where knowledgeable insiders did not sell stock at a time that would have taken advantage of allegedly fraudulent statements there was not a strong inference of scienter
E. holding that plaintiffs failed to plead loss causation where their only allegation was the payment of artificially inflated prices for defendants securities and their complaint failed to provide defendants with notice of what plaintiffs relevant economic loss might be or of what the causal connection might be between that loss and the alleged misrepresentation at issue 
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.