Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
some state-law claims nonactionable through the class-action device”). 2. In connection with prong Plaintiffs assert that even if their complaints allege deceit, their claims are not SLUSA-barred because the challenged conduct did not occur “in connection with the purchase or sale of’ a security. 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f)(l). But, the Supreme Court has read SLUSA’s “in connection with” requirement broadly, finding it satisfied if misrepresentations simply “coincide with a securities transaction.” Dabit, 547 U.S. at 77-78, 85, 126 S.Ct. 1503 (internal quotation marks omitted). The misrepresentation need only “have more than some tangential relation to the securities transaction.” Freeman, 704 F.3d at 1116 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Chadbourne, 134 S.Ct. at 1066 . That test is satisfied here. As the district
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a plaintiff alleging securities fraud must show that a defendant 1 made a material misrepresentation or a material omission as to which he or she had a duty to speak 2 with scienter 3 in connection with the purchase or sale of securities
B. holding that it is unlawful for a person to omit material facts in connection with the offer or sale of a security
C. holding breach of best execution duty is a material misrepresentation in connection with the purchase or sale of the securities
D. holding that slusas in connection with prong extends to misrepresentations that are material to the purchase or sale of a covered security
E. holding that a claim arises from the purchase or sale of a security only if there is an allegation of fraud in the purchase sale or issuance of the  instrument
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.