Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
where no promise to reeonvey). Under these authorities, the facts asserted by Clara would give rise to a constructive trust in the C.D. to her benefit. She makes a prima facie showing that "within the confidential relationship of husband and wife, she transferred property (the loan proceeds) in reliance on her husband’s agreement that the property acquired with the loan proceeds (the C.D.) was hers and his promise that the property would be reconveyed to her upon the maturity of the C.D. The government’s forfeiture forced a breach of that promise that may result in a potentially unjust enrichment of the government (and commensurate unjust impoverishment of Clara) if Clara is denied standing to contest the forfeiture. See United States v. Marx, 844 F.2d 1303, 1306-08 (7th Cir.1988) . Clara’s status as the apparent beneficiary of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding stock transfer restriction in corporate bylaws did not prevent levy against and sale of stock by third party in order to pay judgment
B. holding in forfeiture case that circumstances surrounding mothers conveyance of stock to her soninlaw were sufficient under wisconsin law to create constructive trust in stock in daughters favor where testimony showed such was intent of conveyance despite facts that stock registered in husbands name and that no documentation supported testimony
C. holding that shares of stock in husbands name had not been transmuted
D. holding that a spouse was bound by a conveyance of community property to which she was not a party because of her knowledge and acquiescence to the conveyance
E. holding that the transfer of stock in an insolvent corporation did not constitute fair consideration to support conveyance of property to its stockholder
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.