Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
ERISA. Id. at 16. The First Circuit held that there was no invidious discrimination in the employer’s decision partially to terminate benefits where a legitimate business justification for the decision was readily apparent. Id. Here, more is alleged than a disparate impact to plaintiffs as a result of a business decision to alter a plan. Plaintiffs contend that intentional misstatements regarding the modification of retirement plans at MassMutual and Monsanto caused them prematurely to sever the employment relationship with their respective companies. The MassMutual plaintiffs further allege that there was an intentional design to deprive certain employees&emdash;but not others&emdash;of enhanced pension benefits. See Rodowicz v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 857 F.Supp. at 999 . The claims of Vartanian and the MassMutual
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that factual pleadings on this issue are weak but sufficient
B. holding that parties are bound by admissions in pleadings
C. holding that as a general rule pleadings filed in this court are public records and are not subject to being sealed
D. holding that defendants selfserving affidavit was sufficient to raise a factual issue to be resolved at trial
E. holding that a trial court entered judgment on the pleadings where the decision did not depend on any document outside the pleadings
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.