Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
argument, however, ignores two important limitations to the shield: (1) the shield is removed if the individual’s personal interests motivate his actions, see Rice, 38 F.3d at 912; and (2) the shield generally does not apply when the individual’s actions are discretionary. See Brujis v. Shaw, 876 F.Supp. 975, 978 (N.D.Ill.1995). As noted, the fiduciary shield denies personal jurisdiction if the individual’s actions were “solely on behalf of his employer.” Rice, 38 F.3d at 912. If the individual “was acting also on his own behalf—to serve his personal interests,” the shield does not apply. Id. (emphasis added). The personal interests need not be pecuniary—they may be dislike or malice towards the plaintiff. See id.; Roy v. Austin Co., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16254 at *6-7 (N.D.Ill.1994) . However, a defendant who dislikes or acts
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that injury to business or property was not limited to commercial interests
B. holding on a motion to dismiss that plaintiffs allegation that defendants actions were without justification based on the legitimate business interests of the employer and were performed maliciously was sufficient to prove actions taken to serve personal interests
C. holding that the defendants had received sufficient notice where the original defendants and the newly added defendants shared an identity of interests and were represented by attorneys who were involved in the litigation from its inception
D. holding that both inmates and pretrial detainees can be visually strip searched in the interests of significant and legitimate security interests
E. holding that a determination of the reasonableness of the defendants actions based upon the economic crisis involving the retirement system was premature on a motion to dismiss
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.