Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.16, 2001); see also 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4). An arbitrator’s interim ruling is not a final award if i ance Corp., 935 F.2d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir.1991) (“[Temporary equitable orders calculated to preserve assets or performance needed to make a potential final award meaningful ... are final orders that can be review Mut. Ins. Co., No. Misc. 88-0600, 1996 WL 557513, at *3 n. 8 (E.D.Pa. Sep.30, 1996) (“Even though the arbitration panel’s award is a interim provision for pre-hear-ing security, and the panel has not reached the merits of the case, this court may rule on motions to confirm and vacate the award.”). Indeed, courts have reviewed such interim orders even when they were issued prior to a hearing on the merits. See British Ins. Co. of Cayman, 93 F.Supp.2d at 513 ; Atlas Assurance Co. of Am., 1991 WL 4741, at
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a district court may award attorneys fees while the merits are on appeal
B. holding that only claims properly presented to the bia and considered on their merits can be reviewed by this court
C. holding that a dismissal based on a jurisdictional statute of limitations does not constitute a judgmerit on the merits because a judgment on the merits can only be rendered after a court has jurisdiction
D. holding that a security award separable from the merits of the arbitration which was rendered prior to a hearing on the merits was sufficiently final to be reviewed under the faa
E. recognizing that sanctions are collateral to the merits of the case and may be considered even after the merits are no longer before the district court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.