Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in an action filed or to be filed” under the FCA. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) (amended 2009). The Sixth Circuit has held that “protected activity” should be interpreted broadly. United States ex rel. McKenzie v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 123 F.3d 935, 944 (6th Cir.1997) (McKenzie I) (citation omitted). Indeed, Plaintiff need not have actually filed suit under the FCA to receive whistleblower protection accorded by Section 3730(h). Rather, in accordance with other circuits, the Sixth Circuit has interpreted “in furtherance of’ to require that Plaintiff be “investigating matters that reasonably could lead to a viable False Claims Act case.” Id.; see also Dookeran v. Mercy Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 281 F.3d 105, 108 (3d Cir.2002)  Here, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff “in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a party must at least have a subjective belief that litigation was a real possibility and that belief must have been objectively reasonable
B. holding that a forfeiture action is timely so long as at least an administrative action is filed within the 120day statutory period
C. holding misrepresentation must at least be partial cause of plaintiffs injury
D. holding there must at least be a distinct possibility that a viable fca action could be filed
E. holding that the federal action at issue must be authorized
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.