Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to market instability. If the large-volume purchasers chose not to opt out, their interests will presumably not be maligned with Plaintiffs. 15 . Specifically, Defendants contend that transaction prices during the relevant time period were affected by a United States Antidumping investigation and by Saskatchewan prorationing legislation. (Defs.' Mem. in Opp. to Class Cert. at 22.) Plaintiffs claim, however, that Defendant potash producers filed a petition with the United States International Trade Commission alleging Canadian potash was being "dumped” into the United States in furtherance of their conspiracy to fix potash prices. (TAC ¶¶ 48-49.) 16 . This is an element essential to an antitrust price-fixing claim and one common to the class. The fact that some Plai (D.Mass.1981) ; Hedges Enterprises, Inc. v. Continental
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision
B. holding that allegation of procedural injury does not affect the issues of injury in fact or causation
C. holding that injury to broker through loss of commission was not antitrust injury
D. holding that if plaintiffs could not establish that the particular agent orange causing injury to the plaintiff was manufactured by that defendant then the burden would shift to each defendant to establish that its product could not have caused the plaintiffs injury or alternatively that it should only be responsible for a proportion of the damage
E. holding that because fact of injury was a distinct question from quantum of injury common proof could establish classwide injury even though amount of damage to each plaintiff was uncertain
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.