Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
between the allegations of the complaint, and the focus of Sure-Snap’s plan of reorganization. Id. at 874-75. Further, all such allegations could have and should have been raised in determining the lender’s claim. By providing for the validity and amount of the lender’s claim in the plan, the debtor was barred by res judicata from relitigating the issue post-confirmation. Id.; accord, D & K Properties Crystal Lake v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 1996 WL 224517 at *3 (N.D.Ill.1996), aff'd, 112 F.3d 257, 259 (7th Cir.1997) (parties agreed that elements of res judicata had been satisfied and in the Confirmation Order, the Court found that Defendant had not acted in bad faith in proposing a plan or in resetting the interest rate); Eubanks v. F.D.I.C., 977 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.1992) ; Matter of Howe, 913 F.2d 1138 (5th Cir.1990)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings
B. holding that lender liability claims are noncore and thus not barred by res judicata effect of bankruptcy proceedings
C. holding that lear does not abrogate general principles of res judicata or the res judicata effect of a consent decree regarding patent validity
D. holding that the lender liability claims of the debtor are precluded by res judicata
E. holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.