Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of wrongful means); Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Snelling & Snelling, Inc., No. 60045, 2005 WL 4441899, at *7 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Dec. 19, 2005) (“[T]he complaint contains nothing indicating the ... defendants acted beyond mere self-interest or other economic considerations. This is insufficient to support a claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations.”). Plaintiffs Complaint, which merely alleges that the various interlocked companies in the Shell family preferred to purchase from each other rather than from outside companies, does not offer an exam- pie of “egregious” conduct “so ‘culpable’ ... that it could be the basis for a claim of tortious interference with economic relations.” Carvel II, 818 N.E.2d at 1103-04; see also Masefield AG, 2006 WL 346178, at *9 ; Advanced Global Tech., 836 N.Y.S.2d at 811
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that conclusory allegations that defendant used coercive business practices to intentionally interfere with business relations was insufficient to state a claim
B. holding that plaintiffs allegations that defendant engaged in coercive business practices without justification entirely out of malice and without normal economic selfinterest were conclusory and thus insufficient to state a claim
C. recognizing the tort of wrongful interference with anothers business relations
D. holding that allegations against nondiverse defendants must be factual not conclusory because conclusory allegations do not state a claim
E. holding that with respect to tortious interference recognized standards of business ethics and business customs and practices are pertinent
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.