Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the signatures of Gary and Dale Kahl. 3 Because of this ruling, no determination was made as to when the partnership was formed and which assets were acquired after that date. 4 Gary and Dale Kahl d/b/a Kahl Farms, and Receiver Justice Burgweger are the named respondents. The partnership's other creditors, Bank of New Glarus, Badgerland Harvestore Systems, Inc., John Deere Company, United Bank in Sun Prairie, Mt. Horeb Farmers Co-op, Production Credit Association, and Susan Kahl, were joined as intervenor-respondents. 5 The parties cite two cases from other jurisdictions which are factually very similar to the case at hand: In Re Taylorville Eisner Agency, Inc., 445 F.Supp. 665 (S.D. Ill 1977), and Citizens Sav. Bank v. Sac City State Bank, 315 N.W.2d 20 (Iow F.2d 786 (7th Cir. 1981) . (Several of these cases predate the 1972
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a filing under wishart equipment co insufficient to identify the debtor horace wishart
B. holding a filing under mccauleys reprographics and mapping insufficient to perfect a security interest in the assets of the debtor corporation
C. holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation
D. holding a filing under john and mayella lintz insufficient to identify the debtor corporation
E. holding that the filing of notice without motion is insufficient
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.