Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Id. Similarly in Green v. Green, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, in holding that unvested stock options may be considered marital property, reasoned that restricted stock option plans, like pension plans, are a form of employee compensation. 64 Md.App. 122, 494 A.2d 721, 728 (1985). The court also reasoned that the options constituted marital property because the husband acquired such options while he was married. Id. According to the court, although the options have an “unassignable, unsalable” character and no fair market value, they are nonetheless an “economic resource.” Id. Several other state courts have also held that unvested stock options acquired during the marriage constitute marital property. See Richardson v. Richardson, 280 Ark. 498, 659 S.W.2d 510, 513 (1983) ; In re Marriage of Hug, 154 Cal.App.3d 780,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the trial court properly determined that unvested stock options have marital aspect
B. holding that stock options that could be purchased but not sold without company consent during marriage were community property even though value of options was dependent upon employee spouses postdivorce employment
C. holding that like pension benefits stock options are a form of deferred compensation for efforts expended during the marriage
D. holding that unexercised stock options were not marital property
E. holding that unexercised stock options obtained during the marriage are marital property just like traded options or traded common stock
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.