Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Circuit’s decision in Krishna. In TWU-NYC Private Bus Lines Pension Trust v. Adams, a court in this District held that, where the provisions of the plan clearly indicate that the designated joint survivor annuitant could not be changed once the participant retired, enforcing a waiver in a marital settlement agreement would violate the requirements of § 1104. See No. 99 Civ. 10784, 2003 WL 22383288, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2003). “Unless a pension plan provides otherwise, once a participant retires, the designation of surviving annuitant is irrevocable even if the named annuitant waives all rights to the annuity.” Id. (citing Anderson v. Marshall, 856 F.Supp. 604 (D.Kan.1994)); see also Oglesby v. AT & T Corp., 527 F.Supp.2d 528 (N.D.Tex.2006), aff'd, 257 Fed.Appx. 770 (5th Cir.2007) . Hallingby attempts to differentiate the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that erisa preemption does not apply where the plan itself would not be liable even though a successful plaintiffs damages would be measured in part by the lost pension benefits the plaintiff would have received had he been a participant in the plan
B. holding that because an erisa plan is not a participant beneficiary or fiduciary subject matter jurisdiction did not exist under  502e of erisa over a suit brought by such a plan
C. holding that an extended earnings plan was not an employee pension benefit plan because the payment of benefits was not contingent upon retirement or the employee attaining a certain age
D. holding that the son of a pension plan participant who had not been designated to receive any of his fathers pension benefits stood no closer to beneficiary status than any other person
E. holding that a waiver would not be enforceable where the participant has retired and the pension plan clearly states that beneficiary election is irrevocable upon retirement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.