Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
not filed for bankruptcy, could have brought them notwithstanding Cannon’s misappropriation of trust property, the presence of the express trust in this case complicates matters. Since Bradford did not accept the trust funds as a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice of Cannon’s breach of trust, under general common-law principles the funds Cannon misappropriated remain subject to the express trust. See, e.g., Harris Trust & Sav. Bank, 530 U.S. at 252, 120 S.Ct. 2180 (“[W]hatever [the trustee] recovers he will hold subject to the trust.”). Consequently, the trustee’s recovery, if any, in this case will benefit Cannon’s clients — not the general creditors of the estate. As we previously discussed, section 541 excludes from the debtor’s estate property hel 2d 114 (2d Cir.1991) ; E.F. Hutton & Co. v. Hadley, 901 F.2d 979
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a trustee had no standing to pursue claims of fraud against the debtors accountant because under connecticut law those claims belonged to investors
B. holding that under the rule against splitting a cause of action a new claim for damages is not barred if the underlying cause of action had not accrued at the time of filing the previous lawsuit
C. holding that the trustee had standing to pursue an action for churning against the debtors broker relating to transactions in a discretionary account but did not have standing to bring a suit for fraud since that cause of action accrued to creditors under new york law
D. holding that the rico bar applies even where the plaintiff does not have standing to bring a securities fraud action
E. holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue a permanent nuisance action for injury to property because none of the plaintiffs were the owners of the land when the cause of action accrued with the first injury
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.