Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
other hand, this assertion, without more, does not sufficiently allege that Siemens Austria is financially dependent on its parent, ie., that Siemens Austria cannot run its businesses without the financial backing of its parent. Plaintiffs fail to allege any facts to support the third factor, the “degree to which the parent corporation interferes in the selection and assignment of the subsidiary’s executive personnel and fails to observe corporate formalities.” Beech Aircraft, 751 F.2d at 120-22. Their allegation that “Siemens-Germany [and] Siemens-Austria ... fail to observe proper corporate formalities,” MC ¶ 40, is entirely con-clusory. “Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not fact[ual allegations] and cannot substitute for them.” Schenker, 2002 WL 1560788, at *2 . Further, defendant offers sworn testimony
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review
B. holding affidavits based on conclusory allegations insufficient at summary judgment
C. holding that denial of the opportunity to work overtime is an adverse employment action sufficient to make out a prima facie case under title vii
D. holding that district court erred by requiring plaintiffs to show that they were better qualified than employees who were promoted in order to make a prima facie case
E. holding that plaintiffs conclusory allegations were insufficient to make out prima facie case for mere department status of foreign corporation defendant
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.