Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to the Insureds at the time of the late filing, balanced against the error made by Dave, was not great. The trial court agreed and determined that the damage to other insureds should Dr. Dave’s claim be allowed was “very minimal, if at all.” Given the relatively small size of Dr. Dave’s claim — “in excess of $15,000” — compared to the total of medical malpractice coverage claims in this receivership — approximately $21.8 million — we cannot say that the evidence preponderates against the conclusions of both the special master and the chancellor that allowing Dr. Dave’s claim would have no appreciable adverse impact on the rece ure to take precautions to assure that a deficiency claim was timely filed is not excusable neglect); In re Nickels Performance Sys., Inc., 169 B.R. at 652 . These decisions are consistent with our own
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that misplacing the notice of an appealable order was not excusable neglect
B. holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment
C. holding that a disqualification order in a criminal case is not appealable
D. holding that an order is not a final appealable order when it does not dispose of the complaints against all of the defendants
E. holding that a rehearing order was not final or appealable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.