Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that Amendment 1984-1 was a valid part of the Plan and that the Reference B Report was not a reliable source of data, and had used the SPD’s actuarial factors despite a conflict with other Plan documents. (Def. Opp. 18-19; Def. R. 56.1 Statement ¶ 57.) Thus, plaintiffs assert that PBGC was obligated to affirmatively inform participants that, if these determinations were incorrect, they could potentially be entitled to greater benefits. While a fiduciary may not mislead participants about its decisionmaking processes, it does not have to affirmatively advise participants of every step in its internal deliberations, unless the fiduciary itself has created confusion as to the action being considered. Mullins v. Pfizer, Inc., 23 F.3d 663, 669 (2d Cir.1994); see also Pocchia, 81 F.3d at 278 . Any fiduciary making benefits determinations
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant
B. holding that employer had no obligation to voluntarily disclose deliberations regarding a plan amendment before it had actually been adopted and noting burden on fiduciary and likelihood of confusion arising from overly stringent voluntary disclosure requirements
C. holding that concurrent use of same mark on similar product was sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion
D. holding that even several isolated incidents of actual confusion are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion
E. holding that plaintiff was likely to succeed on merits of  349 claim premised on likelihood of confusion between marks
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.