Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
991 F.2d at 1384 (citing Zedan v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 849 F.2d 1511 (D.C.Cir. 1988)). This language seems to mean that in order for the second clause to apply, the facts establishing all elements of the plaintiffs claim must have occurred within the United States. Contrary to BP’s assertion, Sopo’s activities within the United States are not sufficient to establish a cause of action. All that Sopo allegedly did in the United States was disclose BP’s trade secrets to the United States vendors. This act if proved would not itself establish a trade secret misappropriation. For BP to prevail on a misappropriation theory, it would also have to show that Sopo acquired the information in an unlawful manner. E.g. BP Chemicals, Ltd. v. Baloun, No. 4.-98CV932 RWS (E.D.Mo. Oct. 11, 2000) ; Restatement of Torts § 757(a) (1939) (stating
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the term sold  requires both a transfer of ownership to an unrelated party and consideration
B. holding that proceeds of a litigation settlement were an identifiable fund and thus a proper subject of a misappropriation and conversion claim
C. holding that a misappropriation under morevstat  417450ba requires both an improper acquisition and ultimate disclosure
D. holding that term sold requires both a transfer of ownership to an unrelated party and consideration
E. holding the term misappropriation of an advertising idea to be unambiguous
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.