Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
it was so out of whack, it was repaid in conformance with the business that conducts — I mean, it’s not something you see every day, but it was paid in conformance with the business that conducts a massive fraud and has lots and lots of victims, including Apple Fund. Transcript 2 at 163-165. This court notes that the exception to preference liability applies to payments made by a legitimate business, not payments made by a fraudulent business. The measure of business conduct for purposes of this defense should be limited to the legitimate practices of legitimate businesses. This court declines to apply the Defendants’ reasoning; ordinary businesses do not pay fictitious profits or systematically defraud their customers or their lenders. See, e.g., M & L Bus. Mach. Co., 84 F.3d at 1340 . This court finds that Apple Fund’s collection
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that suspension with pay was not adverse employment action
B. holding statute of limitations for discriminatory pay practices begins when initial pay decision was made
C. holding state wrongful refusal to pay claim barred by exclusivity and penalty provisions of lhwca and distinguishing martin from cases of ordinary refusals to pay
D. holding that ordinary businesses do not pay fictitious profits
E. holding that the employees of government contractors do not have a cause of action for back pay against employers who violate the davisbacon act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.