Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
318-19 (Bankr. M.D.Fla.1991) (awarding $250,000.00 in punitive damages where petitioners acted willfully and maliciously); In re Camelot, Inc., 25 B.R. at 869 (assessing $1,000.00 in punitive damages where petitioners “vindictively” filed their petition). Also, the court should attempt to further overriding bankruptcy policies while ensuring that the penalty is not “unduly harsh.” In re Atlas Mach, and Iron Works, Inc., 190 B.R. at 805 (quoting In re Fox Island Square, 106 B.R. 962, 968 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1989)). The court should take into account the petitioner’s financial situation in determining what amount of sanctions will further the purposes served by punitive damage awards. See TXO Prod. Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443, 462, 113 S.Ct. 2711, 125 L.Ed.2d 366 (1993) . In these cases, Petitioners chose not to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a court may not award punitive damages
B. recognizing the financial position of the defendant as a factor in assessing a punitive damages award
C. holding that defendants wealth is a traditional and acceptable factor where calculating punitive damages
D. holding tcpa is remedial statute and that statutory damages are not punitive damages
E. holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.