Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
L. King, 6 Collier on Bankruptcy § 727.16[1] at pp. 727-72, 727-73. To the extent necessary, the Motion to Dismiss will be treated as a motion for summary judgment on stipulated facts. 3 .FRCP 12(b)(6) is incorporated in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7012, applicable in adversary proceedings in bankruptcy. 4 . The opinion of another court in this District in Caughey v. Succa (In re Succa), 125 B.R. 168 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1991) (Monroe, Bankr. J.), has been cited as holding that equitable tolling applied to § 727(e)(1). See Roost v. Reynolds (In re Reynolds ), 189 B.R. 199, 201 (Bankr.D.Or.1995). The court in Sueca, unlike many courts addressing the issue, held that equitable tolling applies to § 727(e)(2). See e.g., Davis v. Johnson (In re Johnson), 187 B.R. 984 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1995) ; contra, Dwyer v. Peebles (In re Peebles)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding title vii subject to equitable tolling
B. holding that equitable tolling principles apply to suits against the united states in the same manner as they apply to private parties
C. holding that we lacked jurisdiction to review the veterans courts determination that equitable tolling did not apply in the case before it
D. holding that equitable tolling does not apply to  727e2 malloy v frank in re frank 146 br 851 bankrndokla1992 same
E. holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.