Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
awards arising from LCAs than from reviews of CBA determinations. In Cooper Natural Resources, the arbitrator ignored the LCA, relying solely on the CBA. The court in that case was not faced with an issue like that in the present case, where the arbitrator interpreted a provision of the LCA and a party challenged the arbitrator’s interpretation. Thus, Cooper Natural Resources does not support Continental’s position that a more searching review of an arbitrator’s interpretation of an LCA is mandated. Second, none of the authorities relied upon by the court in Cooper Natural Resources support a “no deference” standard of review for awards arising from LCAs. In Tootsie Roll Indus., Inc. v. Local Union No. 1, Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers’ Int’l Union, 832 F.2d 81 (7th Cir.1987) , the court applied the same standard of review
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a court reviewing an arbitrators award in an act 111 grievance arbitration involves questions regarding 1 the jurisdiction of the arbitrator 2 the regularity of the proceedings 3 an excess of the arbitrators powers and 4 deprivation of constitutional rights
B. holding that an arbitrators award should have been vacated
C. recognizing that prevailing party has remedies available at common law to enforce arbitrators award
D. holding that arbitrators award will be vacated if    mistaken as to applicable law
E. holding that arbitrators award of temporary interim equitable relief can be confirmed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.