Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
not manage a fund entrusted to him by the client....”); In re Gelson, 12 F.Supp. 924, 925 (E.D.N.Y.1935) (“An attorney receiving money which is the property of his client, does so in a fiduciary capacity, within the purview of the bankruptcy law.”). Moreover, numerous cases have applied the defalcation exception to debts owed by corporate officers, notwithstanding the absence of any express trust. See, e.g., Pepper v. Litton, 308 U.S. 295, 306, 60 S.Ct. 238, 84 L.Ed. 281 (1939) (“A director is a fiduciary. So is a dominant or controlling stockholder or group of stockholders. Their powers are in trust.” (citations omitted)); In re Hammond, 98 F.2d 703, 705 (2d Cir.1938) (“It can scarcely be doubted ... that a director [is a fiduciary].”); In re Bernard, 87 F.2d 705, 707 (2d Cir.1937) . The district court’s view that only the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under delaware law the fiduciary duties of officers are the same as those of directors
B. holding that where the policy names only the directors or officers as insured the proceeds are not property of the estate
C. holding that independent directors can be entrusted with the decision to sue other directors on behalf of the corporation
D. holding that officers directors and employees of a corporation may become personally liable under  1981
E. holding that directors and officers are fiduciaries
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.