Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to modification may have pre-clusive effect for res judicata purposes. See, e.g., Spiker v. Spiker, 708 N.W.2d 347, 355 (Iowa 2006) (noting order granting continuing relief is “final” for res judicata purposes as long as there has been no substantial change in circumstance). And judgments are given res judicata effect during appeals. Peterson v. Eitzen, 173 N.W.2d 848, 850 (Iowa 1970) (“The judgment of the trial court is res judicata until set aside, modified or reversed.”); see also N. Star Steel Co. v. MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., 184 F.3d 732, 737 (8th Cir. 1999) (“Under Iowa law, issue preclusion may be applied to a trial court’s ruling on the merits of an issue despite the pen-dency of an appeal from that ruling.”); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 13 cmts. c, f at 133, 135 . The Restatement defines “final judgment” to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over such a collateral attack
B. recognizing collateral attack on void order
C. holding that federal rules of res judicata and collateral estoppel determine preclusive effect of prior federal ftca judgments even though liability is based on state law
D. recognizing preclusive effect of judgments notwithstanding pending appeal or collateral attack
E. holding that settlement agreements like consent judgments are not given preclusive effect unless the parties manifest their intent to give them such effect
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.