Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
insolvent, the directors are thereafter considered as trustees for the corporate creditors.” 3 Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations § 849 (1945 ed.). It appears, then, that the directors of a Chapter 11 debtor are not fiduciaries of the corporation; rather, they are fiduciaries of the estate, which the debtor in possession holds as trustee for the creditors, 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a). Given that, it is difficult to accept debtors’ position that, in effect, there is no difference in the relationship between the debtors and their directors pre- and post-petition, since the nature of the directors’ duties has changed from helmsman to guardian. 43 B.R. at 459-60 n. 22. See also Automatic Canteen Co. of America v. Wharton, (In re Continental Vending Machine Corp.) 358 F.2d 587, 590 (2d Cir.1966) ; Davis v. Woolf, 147 F.2d 629, 633 (4th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the directors of a corporation 
B. holding that directors of an insolvent corporation are trustees for the creditors
C. holding that independent directors can be entrusted with the decision to sue other directors on behalf of the corporation
D. recognizing that insolvent corporations officers are directors and may have fiduciary duty to existing creditors not to dissipate corporate assets
E. recognizing that when a corporation is insolvent the trust fund doctrine fundamentally alters the relationship between a corporation its shareholders and its creditors and that corporate or shareholder ratification does not apply to creditors who would be prejudiced thereby
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.