Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
began to run at the filing of the Chapter 11 petition and expired on January 24, 1994, five months before the filing of this action. This court recently held that the two-year statute of limitations in Section 546(a) begins to run against a debtor-in-possession upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition in a Chapter 11 case. In re Harstad, 170 B.R. 666, 669 (D.Minn.1994). Although a question of first impression in this circuit, the decision is in accord with four courts of appeals. See In re Century Brass Products, Inc., 22 F.3d 37 (2d Cir.1994); In re Coastal Group, Inc., 13 F.3d 81 (3d Cir.1994); In re Softwaire Centre Int'l, Inc., 994 F.2d 682 (9th Cir.1993); Zilkha Energy Co. v. Leighton, 920 F.2d 1520 (10th Cir.1990); but see In re Maxway Corp., 27 F.3d 980 (4th Cir.1994) , cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 580, 130
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the statute of limitations does not run on a debtorinpossession
B. holding that negligently allowing a statute of limitations to run does not constitute an ethical violation
C. holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered
D. holding that statute of limitations does not run until it was or should have been clear to the employee that the union would not pursue the grievance
E. holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.