Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
point out that ERISA contains a savings clause. Id. at 398. “Specifically, the savings clause provides that ERISA’s preemption provision ‘shall not be construed to alter, amend, modify, invalidate, impair, or supersede any law of the United States.’ ” /¿.(quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1144(d)(1998)). The Court then cited Gurry’s analysis with approval for the proposition that nothing in § 34-34 conflicts with ERISA. Id. at 399. Judge Payne recognized that the Bankruptcy Code explicitly contemplated that “state laws have a central role in defining applicable exemptions to be made in protecting property of the estate from the reach of lding Missouri statute that exempted pension plan benefits from bankruptcy estate was not preempted due to savings clause); In re Dyke, 943 F.2d 1435 (5th Cir.1991) . See also In re Weinhoeft, 275 F.3d 604, 605
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a tortious interference claim was preempted by erisa because it did not meet the legal standard announced by the supreme court in miller in order for it to regulate insurance within the meaning of erisas savings clause
B. holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied
C. holding florida exemption statute for employee benefit plans was not preempted by erisa due to savings clause
D. holding texas exemption law was not preempted by erisa due to savings clause
E. holding that erisa completely preempted certain state law claims and finding that erisa preempted an employees common law tort and contract claim when the employee sought benefits under the employers disability policy
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.