Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in whose name Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 requires an action to be brought, and the debtor no longer has standing to pursue that cause of action. See 11 U.S.C. § 323(b); Toussaint v. Howard University, Civil Action No. 03-1395(JDB), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38738, at *5-7 (D.D.C. November 8, 2005); Parker v. Wendy’s Int’l, Inc., 365 F.3d 1268, 1272 (11th Cir. 2004); Cain v. Hyatt, 101 B.R. 440, 442 (E.D.Pa.1989) (“[A]fter appointment of a trustee, a Chapter 7 debtor no longer has standing to pursue a cause of action which existed at the time the Chapter 7 petition was filed. Only the trustee, as representative of the estate, has the authority to prosecute and/or settle such causes of action.”); Banks v. County of Allegheny (In re Banks), 223 Fed.Appx. 149, 151 (3d Cir.2007) . Here, the discrimination cause of action
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring  a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee
B. holding trustee has waived the right to bring a preference objection
C. recognizing authority of chapter 13 trustee to recover overpayment but not finding refund appropriate where error was attributable to trustee
D. holding on facts similar to those in dmart that the  546a limitation period runs from appointment of chapter 7 trustee after case was converted from chapter 11
E. holding in a case where a chapter 11 trustee was appointed after a period during which the debt or had operated as debtor in possession that a chapter 11 trustee has two years from the date of his appointment not from the commencement of the chapter 11 case to bring avoidance actions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.