Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
disbursing the $65,000. Moreover, even if it were to be assumed that federal common law does not govern the perfection of MHFA’s security interest, see supra note 11, the same result would obtain under Massachusetts law. In Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Boston Harbor Marina Co., 159 B.R. 616 (D.Mass.1993), the district court held that a Massachusetts mortgagee which recorded its assignment of rents in the registry of deeds as an adjunct to its mortgage, “perfected” its lien in the rents so as to constitute the rents “cash collateral” under Bankruptcy Code § 363(a), and that there was no need for the creditor to take possession of the real property (e.g., as by foreclosure) or the rents (e.g., as by appointment of a receiver) prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition. Id. at 620-22 ; see also H.R.Rep. No. 95-595, 95th Cong., 1st
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that 20 of creditors knowing of consignment relationship does not satisfy general knowledge requirement notwithstanding that such creditors represented 63 of claims against debtor
B. recognizing distinction between perfection which governs secured creditors rights against third parties and enforcement of liens which controls creditors rights against its debtor rejecting theory that such inchoate or unenforced security interests are voidable under bankruptcy code  544a
C. holding that creditors rights are subject to any qualifying or contrary provisions of the bankruptcy code
D. holding that a creditors security was preserved notwithstanding the bankruptcy of the debtor
E. holding an unsecured creditors postconfirmation suit against a secured creditor for fraudulent misrepresentation at a creditors meeting constituted a collateral attack on the confirmation order
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.