Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of that statute, he must show “(1) that the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice declared unlawful by the [Tennessee Consumer Protection Act] and (2) that the defendant’s conduct caused an ‘ascertainable loss of money or property, real, personal, or mixed, or any other article, commodity, or „ thing of value wherever situated....’” Hanson v. J.C. Hobbs Co., Inc., No. W2001-02523-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 5873582, at *9 (Tenn.Ct.App. Nov. 21, 2012) (quoting Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-109(a)(l)). To prevail, therefore, the Tennessee attorney general need not show that S & P violated CRARA or any other federal provision. That is, the right that he seeks to vindicate “is the right not to be lied to in a fashion that causes reliance and results in financial 195 (2d Cir.2005) . By contrast, if S & P had never invoked
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that state law claim regarding breach of settlement agreement was preempted by federal labor law
B. holding that dalessio did not justify removal where the gravamen of plaintiffs complaint was that defendants made materially false statements to them in a manner prohibited by new york law and in violation of duties created by new york law and no construction or interpretation of federal law was required
C. holding the same where the plaintiff alleged breach of a contract provision that incorporated federal law by reference and breach of a new york statute by failing to provide uniform rates allegedly required by federal law
D. holding under new york law in fact the failure to prove damages is  fatal to a plaintiffs breach of contract cause of action 
E. holding that federal statutes and regulations can form the basis of a breach of contract claim if expressly incorporated into the contract
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.