Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
personally upon them. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Berge v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama, 104 F.3d 1453, 1457-58 (4th Cir.1997) (opining that so long as the government has suffered an injury-in-fact, the qui tam plaintiff possesses general standing as the government’s representative); United States ex rel. Hall v. Tribal Dev. Corp., 49 F.3d 1208, 1212-1214 (7th Cir.1995) (stating “[o]nce we accept the premise that the United States is the real plaintiff in a qui tam action, it stands to reason that challenges to the standing of the government’s representative are beside the point____Requiring an additional showing of injury on the part of the qui tam relator would be an analytical redundancy.”); United States ex rel. Kelly v. Boeing Co., 9 F.3d 743, 748 (9th Cir.1993) ; Kreindler, 985 F.2d at 1154 (declaring that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that standing of a qui tam plaintiff under the false claims act requires an injury to the united states
B. holding that a state or agency is not a person subject to qui tam liability under the false claims act
C. holding that to be protected by the fca when confronting an employer the employee must sufficiently allege activity with a nexus to a qui tam action or fraud against the united states government
D. holding that the fca effectively assigns the governments claims to qui tam plaintiffs  who then may sue based upon an injury to the federal treasury
E. holding that plaintiff could not maintain a qui tam fca action against a municipal entity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.