Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
regarding the question presented here: whether a state actor's contract to convey properly if successfully acquired through eminent domain is subject to U.S. Trust's heightened scrutiny analysis or is void on its face. 5 . Indeed, there is no provision in the contracts that purports to prevent the City from conveying the property to the Lessees and later taking the property for public use. Thus, these contracts contain none of the same elements the Court found unenforceable in West River Bridge and Contributors to Pennsylvania Hospital. 6 . Indeed, as a survey of our Contracts Clause jurisprudence indicates, Ordinance 05-001 is quite analogous to the state actions this court and the Supreme Court have assessed under U.S. Trust. See U.S. Trust, 431 U.S. at 22-23, 97 S.Ct. at 1518 ; Winstar, 518 U.S. at 888-89, 116 S.Ct. 2432
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york
B. holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership
C. holding that concurrent and parallel new york and new jersey statutes that retroactively repealed a covenant between the states and bondholders in the stateowned port authority was subject to contracts clause analysis
D. holding that neither the new york location of the terrorist attack giving rise to the policyholders claim nor the new yorkbased claims adjustor rendered new york the locus of operative facts because new york was not the site of the contracts execution
E. holding purposeful and deliberate omission on enactment of new jersey sales and use tax of exemption found in new york counterpart act which served as the model for new jersey act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.