Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
as a deemed party under the doctrine. Under Texas law, Lapiner cannot satisfy any of the elements of the doctrine of virtual representation. Lapiner is not bound by the underlying judgment — Is-ramco is bound. The claims adjudicated in this shareholder derivative action are for injury to the corporation, as distinguished from injury to its shareholders. See Swank v. Cunningham, 258 S.W.3d 647, 661-62 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2008, pet. denied); see also Redmon v. Griffith, 202 S.W.3d 225, 233 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2006, pet. denied). Our analysis is not altered even though the shareholder derivative action judgment may “bring about reduced earnings, salaries, or bonuses.” See BJVSD Bird Family P’ship, L.P. v. Star Elec., L.L.C., 413 S.W.3d 780, 785-86 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) . Finally, there is no identity of interest
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an action naming a state entity as a defendant did not constitute an action against the state because the state entity was sued in its capacity as receiver
B. holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense
C. holding that the appellants interest as a stakeholder in an entity did not satisfy the privity element of the virtual representation doctrine
D. holding that the trial court erred in denying the defendants motion in arrest of judgment when the indictment lacked a material element and it was not apparent that the grand jury based the indictment on facts that satisfy this element of the crime and that the only permissible cure was to send the matter back to the grand jury
E. holding the connection is an element
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.