Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
See also Matter of Schultz Mfg. Fabricating Co., 956 F.2d 686, 689 (7th Cir.1992) (finding no district court jurisdiction in the absence of a timely notice of appeal from the bankruptcy court). of appeal within 10 dismissing the peti- But the order refusing to convert the Chapter 7 proceedings from New York into the Chapter 13 proceedings in Illinois was not a final order. It did not bring the Illinois Chapter 13 petition to an end; virtually the entire dispute remained, involving the same parties and the same issues. Even though the concept of finality is relaxed in the bankruptcy context, see In re Jartran, Inc., 886 F.2d 859, 861-62 (7th Cir.1989), this order was interlocutory in the purest sense of the word. See Caldwell-Baker Co. v. Parsons, 392 F.3d 886, 888 (7th Cir.2004) . See also In re Young, 237 F.3d 1168, 1172-73
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a bankruptcy court order denying a trustees claim to immunity was final and appealable under the collateral order doctrine
B. holding that where an adversary proceeding continues the order  is no more a final decision than an order denying summary judgment or denying a request for additional discovery the litigation proceeds and the issue will be reviewed if it turns out to make a difference to an order that is independently appealable
C. holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable
D. recognizing that an order denying a motion to modify a family court order where the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances is appealable as a special order after final judgment
E. holding that order denying representation to class of future claimants in bankruptcy proceeding is equivalent to denial of request to intervene and order denying right to intervene is appealable final order
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.