Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
59 . Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). 60 : See Bell Atl., 127 S.Ct. at 1970. 61 . Id. at 1964. Accord ATSI, 493 F.3d at 98 n. 2 (applying the standard of plausibility outside Twombly's anti-trust context). 62 . Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir.2007) (emphasis in original). 63 . Bell Atl., 127 S.Ct. at 1969 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). Accord id. (“The phrase is best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard ....”). 64 . ATSI, 493 F.3d at 98 (quoting Be 82 . In re Par Pharm., Inc. Sec. Litig., 733 F.Supp. 668, 675 (S.D.N.Y.1990). Accord In re Time Warner, Inc. Sec. Litig., 9 F.3d 259, 268 (2d Cir.1993) ; Lapin v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 506
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a duty to disclose arises whenever secret information renders prior public statements materially misleading
B. holding that whether attorney complied with fiduciary duty to disclose all material information was question of fact
C. holding that erisas duty of loyalty creates a duty to disclose certain information to beneficiaries
D. holding that to state cause of action based on an omission a plaintiff must explain how an alleged omitted fact negates the truth of or renders misleading the statements actually made
E. holding that a cause of action based on an omission requires the plaintiff to show how an alleged omitted fact negates the truth of or renders misleading the statements actually made
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.