Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
26, 2003), both of which are now final. Id. As for the Promissory Notes, they are not valid, because the Certificates of Assessment do not indicate that the original notes were accepted as payment. Id. at 3. Although Plaintiffs claimed to have “corrected” the Promissory Notes, correction is “neither apparent from an examination of the notes nor does it remedy their primary defect — they are not drawn on a legitimate domestic financial institution.” Id. Even if the Promissory Notes were valid, “jurisdiction prerequisites must be satisfied at the time the complaint is filed ... so [Plaintiffs’ post factum payment would not cure their failure to satisfy the full-payment rule.” Id.; see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 571 n. 4, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) . Finally, Plaintiffs’ contention that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that res judicata applies when the question of jurisdiction is raised and determined
B. holding that whether an action would have a conceivable effect on the bankrupt estate is determined at the time a lawsuit is filed
C. holding that the plaintiff cannot defeat federal jurisdiction by reducing his claim for damages after removal because the amount in controversy is determined by looking at the complaint when filed
D. holding that the court had discretion to allow substitution of plaintiffs to satisfy diversity jurisdiction requirements in order to give the court jurisdiction where no jurisdiction existed when the complaint was filed
E. holding that jurisdiction is determined at the time the complaint is filed and postfiling events cannot create jurisdiction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.