Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Supply, plaintiff in its complaint and in its motion for summary judgment before the bankruptcy court vigorously contended that the financing statements comported with the statutory requirements and constituted the “first and best lien” on EAI of NC’s assets. Plaintiff asserted that the statutory and case law established that: {¶ 15} “[I]nadvertent omission [in plaintiffs financing statements] is not seriously misleading and does not render the Financing Statements invalid because: a) the mere omission of the words ‘of North Carolina’ when the addresses of EAI and EAI of NC are the same and the two are related companies does not result in a misleading error; and b) the coversheets specifically refer the reader to the attached Security Agreement for the signature 3 UCC Rep.Serv. 719 . {¶ 18} Plaintiff prevailed and the bankruptcy
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a forged signature constitutes the use of that persons name and thus qualifies as a means of identification under the statute
B. recognizing as a matter of federal law that an action to redress injuries to a corporation cannot be maintained by a shareholder in his own name but must be brought in the name of the corporation
C. holding decrees identification of person by name was sufficiently specific for purposes of thirdparty beneficiary status
D. holding to be sufficient the incorrect identification of debtor as platt fur co instead of the correct name of henry platt
E. holding that an action brought in the name of a person adjudicated as incapacitated instead of in the name of her guardian cannot be corrected as a misnomer
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.