Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(V.I. 2008)). Having reviewed the magistrate’s order and the record, we agree with the Superior Court that the magistrate did not commit clear error in his determination of actual notice. To show that the opposing party received actual notice, a party is not required to prove that any particular form, such as personal service by a process server or service by mail, was used. See Tulsa, 485 U.S. at 491 (permitting actual notice to be given by “ ‘mail or other means as certain to ensure actual notice.’ ”) (quoting Mennonite, 462 U.S. at 800). In the present context, the critical issue under Tulsa is whether or not the claimants had actual knowledge of the creation and pendency of the estate, not the form the notice took. See In re Estate of Sheridan, 117 P.3d 39, 41 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004) . The magistrate rested his determination that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that when a creditor does not receive adequate notice the creditor is not bound by the confirmation order
B. holding 57 days notice before deadline to file a complaint under  523 was sufficient notice when creditor had actual notice of filing
C. holding that personal injury action arising during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings was property of the estate
D. holding that despite a lack of any formal notice tulsa requirement was satisfied by a showing that because the creditor was also the executor of the estate the creditor had actual notice of the pendency of the estate proceedings
E. holding that the creditor did not satisfy the foregoing requirement because it was trying to exercise the avoidance power for itself as a sole creditor not for the benefit of the debtors estate or the creditors as a whole
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.