Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
appointed. The trustee filed several adversary proceeding on July 11, 1988 seeking to avoid preferential transfers. These proceedings were filed more than two years from commencement of the Chapter 11 case, but less than two years from conversion to Chapter 7 and appointment of the trustee. The bankruptcy court, noting that the Tenth Circuit had reserved decision in Zilkha on whether the subsequent appointment of a trustee in a Chapter 11 case would affect the § 546(a) limitation period, ruled that such an appointment would begin a new two-year period by which avoidance actions must be brought. Id. at 989. Three other courts have come to the same conclusion as the D-Mart court. See Daff v. Regal Recovery Inc. (In re Continental Capital & Credit, Inc.), 158 B.R. 828 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1993) ; Sapir v. Green Forest Lumber Ltd. (In re
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding in a case where a chapter 11 trustee was appointed after a period during which the debt or had operated as debtor in possession that a chapter 11 trustee has two years from the date of his appointment not from the commencement of the chapter 11 case to bring avoidance actions
B. holding tort action accruing after original chapter 7 petition not part of estate when case converted to chapter 13 and then back to chapter 7
C. holding on facts similar to those in dmart that the  546a limitation period runs from appointment of chapter 7 trustee after case was converted from chapter 11
D. holding denial of motion to convert from chapter 11 to chapter 7 is interlocutory
E. holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring  a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.