Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
authority. Miss.Code Ann. § 79-29-303(1) (emphasis added). Moreover, “[n]o act of a manager or member in contravention of a restriction on authority shall bind the limited liability company to persons having knowledge of the restriction.” Miss.Code Ann. § 79-29-303(4). In this case, the Bankruptcy Court correctly found that Earwood was not authorized to convey title to Northlake and that Northlake had knowledge of the unauthorized act because Earwood owned North-lake. Earwood could not bind Kinwood. Miss.Code Ann. § 79-29-303(1). The question, however, is whether a subsequent BFP thereafter obtains clear title. No Mississippi court has ever considered these statutory provisions in light of a claimed BFP. Thus, this Court considered the rules of statutory construction and th pp.2002) . Although Mississippi has not considered the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that minors have authority to ratify or avoid conveyances upon reaching majority at which point conveyances become void ab initio 
B. holding that an action taken in violation of the automatic stay is void ab initio
C. holding void ab initio ordinance proscribing punishment in excess of that authorized in charter
D. holding that a state court judgment that modifies a discharge in bankruptcy is void ab initio and the rookerfeldman doctrine would not bar federal court jurisdiction
E. holding that because there was no quorum of validly appointed board members the nlrb lacked authority to act and the enforcement order was therefore void ab initio 
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.