Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
would not have recovered anything even in the absence of a grant of derivative standing to Hyundai. Or, if the estate has additional assets and the JT & T parties have a small, secured claim that is superior to all other claims, then they will likely recover on their claim regardless of whether the adversary action brought by Hyundai is successful. In either of these scenarios, permitting Hyundai to pursue the avoidance and recovery action could hardly be said to have a negative impact on the JT & T parties’ interests as creditors. See In re The Watch Ltd., 257 Fed.Appx. at 750 (stating, in dictum, that the creditor’s injury was too speculative where he could not show a likelihood of recovering on his unsecured claim); In re Richardson Indus. Contractors, Inc., 189 Fed.Appx. at 93 ; see also Fishell v. Soltow (In re Fishell),
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. holding that unsecured creditor could not appeal decision determining priority among secured creditors because it would not affect the payment of his claims
C. holding that plan proposing and payment of nondischargeable student loan in full outside plan according to its terms for 54 months and 79 payment to unsecured creditors over 36 months did not discriminate unfairly among unsecured class
D. holding that because creditors claim was unsecured after application of section 506a and because section 1325a5 does not apply to unsecured claims creditors lien could properly be avoided
E. holding that postconfirmation attempt to equitably subordinate claim of one general unsecured creditor in a class of general unsecured creditors was a violation of  1123a4
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.