Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
or otherwise demonstrating that they received little or nothing of value under the contract. See, e.g., Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., 91 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1097 (W.D.Mieh.2000) (“[N]either the text nor the commentary to the Holder Rule limits the availability of affirmative consumer claims against assignee-creditors to those who assert a right of rescission under common law.”); Simpson v. Anthony Auto Sales, Inc., 32 F.Supp.2d 405, 409 fn. 10 (W.D.La.1998) (“[A] plaintiff should not be required to first prove that she has received little or nothing of value in order to recover from her creditor, as the FTC notice does not advise the creditor” of such a requirement); Jaramillo v. Gonzales, 132 N.M. 459, 50 P.3d 554 (App.2002), cert. denied, 132 N.M. 288, 47 P.3d 447 (2002) ; Alduridi v. Community Trust Bank, N.A., 1999
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that ftc holder rule does not limit affirmative claims to those instances where rescission would be appropriate
B. holding that the holder of the note must act in a manner that effectively provides notice that the holder has exercised his option
C. holding that procedural bar rule does not apply to ineffectiveness claims
D. holding that equitable exception to one year limit applied where defendant had no reason to believe that plaintiff would increase the scope of claims after the filing of the original complaint
E. holding that the rights of a bona fide purchaser outweighed those of an under secured second mortgage holder
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.