Which of the Following Was the Result in Halliburton Energy

Which of the following was the result in Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Fleet National Bank, the case in the text in which an unknown person stole a check drawn on a Halliburton account, inserted a fictitious name as the payee, and managed to obtain funds through forging the name of the fictitious payee and depositing the cheek with Fleet, a brokerage fund, which then obtained the funds from the payor bank?

A) That because the name of the fictitious payee was forged, the payor bank was required to take the loss, and Halliburton was entitled to a summary judgment ruling in its favor.
B) That because a fictitious payee was involved, Halliburton was required to take the loss as a matter of law; and Fleet, the brokerage firm, was entitled to a summary judgment ruling in its favor.
C) That Halliburton was not entitled to a summary judgment ruling in its favor because of a lack of evidence that Fleet, the brokerage firm, was anything other than a holder in due course.
D) That because of the lack of a showing of bad faith, Halliburton and Fleet were required to split the loss on a 50-50 basis.
E) That because of the lack of a showing of bad faith, Halliburton, Fleet, and the original drawer of the check were all required to share the loss on a proportional basis.