Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Producers’ counsel acknowledged that netting is rational behavior, but stated that “we contend that the way the statute is written in these types of situations ... you have a problem being a buyer in the ordinary course [if you utilize netting].” The Court finds this contention, in light of established practices in the oil and gas industry, to be an untenable proposition. The Downstream Purchasers bought and sold oil and gas on credit with the Debtors agreeing to pay the following month. Although the Downstream Purchasers did not pay for the oil on the sale date, they gave “new value” in the form of a promise to pay, increasing the Debtors’ accounts receivable. This increase in accounts receivable is considered “new value.” See In re Black Diamond Mining Co., 2011 WL 6202905, at *24 . Additionally, payment in the form of oil is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiff could not be asked to accept an increase in the contributory negligence percentage and thus a decrease in the judgment as the price of avoiding a new trial
B. holding that dalessio did not justify removal where the gravamen of plaintiffs complaint was that defendants made materially false statements to them in a manner prohibited by new york law and in violation of duties created by new york law and no construction or interpretation of federal law was required
C. holding that new value was created in the form of an increase in accounts receivable
D. holding that documents that are created in the ordinary course of business or would have been created irrespective of litigation are not protected by the work product doctrine
E. holding the application of change in law regarding the timetable for being eligible for parole board hearings was not an increase in punishment violative of the ex post facto clause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.