Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
challenge the computation of the compensatory damages. 7 . Although some of these events did take place prior to the plan's confirmation, the claims are not barred by res judicata because the breaches of fiduciary duly did not occur until well afterward. The pre-confirmation events are looked at only for background, pattern of activity, and for evidence of motive. See n.4, supra. 8 . We also find that the punitive damages were proportional to the compensatory damages, less than a 2 to 1 ratio, and that there is therefore no need to discuss a possible conflict between Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 1032, 113 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991) (suggesting that punitive damages disproportionate to compensatory damages may violate due process), and Kirkbride, 555 A.2d at 803 . See Tunis Bros. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 952
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that punitive damages do not need to be proportional to compensatory damages
B. holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages
C. holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated
D. holding compensatory and punitive damages constitute legal remedies
E. holding that punitive damages are available in an intentional discrimination action even if the jury does not assess compensatory damages
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.