Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the business judgment rule. In view of the case law and the record we are unable to say that the district court abused its discretion. B. MONDSCHEIN’S CLAIM OF DEMAND FUTILITY Unlike Stepak; Mondschein did not make a demand upon the Board. Instead, Mondschein alleged that demand was futile and therefore excused. The district court rejected this argument and held that under Spiegel v. Buntrock, 571 A.2d 767 (Del.1990), and Stotland v. GAF Corp., 469 A.2d 421 (Del.1983), Stepak’s demand precluded any Southern stockholder from prosecuting a demand other excused derivative suit based on the claims covered by the Stepak demand letter. The district court is not alone in its analysis. See Boeing Co. v. Shrontz, Del.Ch. (Civ. A. No. 11,278, April 20, 1992), 18 Del. J.Corp.L. 225, 237 (1993) . On appeal, Mondschein does not address the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiffs cannot cover all the bases by having one shareholder make a demand and another allege demand futility spiegel requires shareholders to choose either to make demand or attempt to establish demand futility
B. holding that the federal acquisition regulation far requires a claim to be a written demand seeking a sum certain  as a matter of right
C. holding that plaintiffs wishing to inspect books and records for purposes of pleading demand futility in an amended derivative complaint had a proper purpose
D. holding that plaintiff lacked a proper purpose for bringing a section 220 action because the federal judge in kenney had denied plaintiffs request to replead demand futility in an amended complaint
E. holding that the statute does not begin to run until at least a demand has been made upon the government but determining that the facts of that case made it unnecessary to choose between the date of demand and the date of actual payment as the triggering date for the running of the statute of limitations
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.