Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
— affects the FDIC’s ability to function as receiver in the case. The “disposition of a failed [bank’s] assets ... is one of the quintessential statutory powers of the [FDIC] as a receiver.” Pyramid Constr. Co. v. Wind River Petroleum, Inc., 866 F.Supp. 513, 517 (D.Utah 1994). If an asset sold to a third-party purchaser is subject to dilution in a later judicial proceeding, there would be a substantial chilling effect upon the receiver’s ability to perform its statutory functions. In Pyramid, the court rejected the argument that § 1821(j) did not apply because a plaintiff sought relief against the receiver’s successor. The plaintiffs argument in Pyramid sounded much like Dittmer’s here — because the receiver had alread 4, 1993 WL 149084, at *2 (N.D.Cal. April 30, 1993) (unpublished) . Of the many cases Dittmer cites in support of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing claim against bank receiver
B. holding that the antiinjunction act barred the court from enjoining eviction proceedings in the suffolk county district court fifth district because the court had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs claims under the real estate settlement procedures act
C. holding that a failure to comply with the foreclosure statutes invalidates a foreclosure sale
D. holding that a bank receiver by filing a claim permits challenge to the secured portion of its claim
E. holding that  1821 barred a claim to enjoin a bank and its trustee from conducting a foreclosure sale because enjoining these parties indirectly enjoins the receiver which a district court has no power to do
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.