Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
real party in interest in [the Contract Action] wherein the Debtor is r § 8127(a) is relevant. See Clark v. Rameker, — U.S.—, 134 S.Ct. 2242, 2244 n. 1, 189 L.Ed.2d 157 (2014) ("Under [11 U.S.C.] § 522, debtors may elect to claim exemptions either under federal law, see § 522(b)(2), or state law, see § 522(b)(3).”); cf. Bosack, 454 B.R. at 630, 633-35 (considering whether commissions earned pre-petition were exempt under § 8127(a) where the debt- or "elected to take the exemptions available to him under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3), that is essentially Pennsylvania state exemptions and the property that he owns with his nondebtor wife as a tenant by the entirety”). The Court also notes it is not at all clear Segal's interpretation of Pennsylvania law is correct. See Bosack, 454 B.R. at 633 . 19 . Segal also argues the Bankruptcy Court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding  8127a has no application when an individual works for another as an independent contractor because in such event the person or entity for whom such individual works is not indeed cannot be such individuals employer
B. recognizing such an exception
C. holding that a government agency seeking to enforce a prior order regarding prepetition acts of a debt or is not bound by a confirmed plan a if such agency fails to participate in the confirmation of such plan b if the obligations that such agency seeks to impose upon such debtor do not constitute claims c notwithstanding that such plan purports to treat such debtors obligations to such agency and d since it thus is not a named entity within  1141a
D. holding that the determination of whether an individual is an independent contractor lies in the common law and not under an express provision of the act
E. holding that fca retaliation claim must fail as against defendants sued in their individual capacities because such individuals were not employers
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.