Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
finds this argument unconvincing for two reasons. First, as presented above, Karaeff relied on factors in addition to the apparent wealth of the Harts, such as the close personal relationship and trust between her and Toby, as well as her perception of Toby as a savvy real estate developer. Although Karaeff may not have had as close of a relationship with Toby as she did with Debra Hart, her testimony indicates she trusted Toby as a family member. Trial Tr. 10:5-10. Second, the language under 523(a)(2)(A) “other than a statement respecting the debtor’s ... financial condition,” should be interpreted narrowly to include formal written accounting documents, and not broad oral or written statements concerning financial wealth. See In re Belice, 461 B.R. 564, 577-78 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.2011) ; In re Joelson, 427 F.3d 700, 714 (10th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the phrase statement respecting the debtors  financial condition should be narrowly interpreted
B. holding that a phrase should be interpreted consistent with the context of the statute in which it is contained
C. holding that representation as to financial solvency of partnership was statement of financial condition because it reflected overall economic condition of partnership
D. holding that the phrase relates to should be interpreted to limit the breadth of erisa
E. holding that contracts should be interpreted to give effect to all provisions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.