Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
due constituted an act of default. On March 1, 1985, as we have seen, the bank loan was still outstanding, the subordination agreements were in force, and the bank had not given Tri-County consent to pay Culp and Newton. Payment in those circumstances would have violated the subordination agreements. Failure to perform a prohibited act cannot be treated as an event of default. Consequently, the corporation’s failure to pay interest on March 1, 1985, afforded Culp and Newton no immediate basis to sue on the notes. Cf. P.M. Finance Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 302 F.2d 786 (3rd Cir.1962) (observing that a “complete” subordination destroys a creditor’s power to demand payment at a fixed maturity date); Standard Brands, Inc. v. Straile, 23 A.D.2d 363, 260 N.Y.S.2d 913 (1965) . Culp and Newton have argued that Tri-County
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding in the case of complete subordination that no action lies against the debtor but that a separate action may lie against a guarantor
B. recognizing that equitable estoppel will not lie against the government as it lies against private litigants and acknowledging merrill as the leading case in the courts modern line of estoppel decisions
C. holding that an employees action against her employer for negligent supervision lies not in tort but with an action for breach of contract
D. holding that an action against a tribal enterprise is an action against the tribe itself
E. holding that an action brought pursuant to  1983 cannot lie against federal officers
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.