Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
remedies, power to pursue equitable remedies in the context of discovery. See S.Rep. No. 89-1159 (1965), reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2032, at 2466. Hoskins asks this Panel to interpret § 544(a)(2) to give a trustee all the substantive rights of the hypothetical execution lien creditor, which in California include standing to bring a claim for relief for aiding and abetting fraudulent transfers against a third party. See Neilson v. Union Bank of Cal., N.A., 290 F.Supp.2d 1101, 1118 (C.D.Cal.2003). Other courts within the Ninth Circuit have declined to grant a trustee standing to pursue such a claim, albeit under a different subsection of the strong arm statute. See Wyle v. Howard, Weil, Labouisse, Friedrichs Inc. (In re Hamilton Taft & Co.), 176 B.R. 895, 902 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.1995) ; Ciolino v. Ryan (In re Ryan), 2008 WL 4829947
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing aiding and abetting conversion
B. holding that the trustee did not have power to pursue an aiding and abetting claim for relief under  544b
C. holding it was not a surprise or unfair to the defendant for the state to pursue a theory of aiding and abetting at trial when the charging document did not refer to aiding and abetting
D. recognizing both aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting conversion
E. recognizing aiding and abetting trespass
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.