Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Agreement provides that is governed by New York law. Settlement Agreement at § 9.6. 3 . The Levy Claimants argue that it is unclear whether CPLR 2104 applies to settlement agreements entered into by litigants in federal court in New York. See Levy Claimants’ Brief at 13 (citing Kaczmarczyk v. Acme Contracting LLC, No. 06-CV-1005, 2009 WL 3739442, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2009)). The case they cite is distinguishable, however, as it did not involve an agreement that expressly provided that it “shall be governed, construed, and interpreted and the rights of the parties ... determined in accordance with New York law,” as does the Settlement Agreement here. Settlement Agreement at § 9.6. See also Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Sears Realty Co., Inc., 932 F.Supp. 392, 403 (N.D.N.Y.1996)  The Court will thus apply CPLR 2104 to the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that courts disagree whether federal common law or state law governs the interpretation of negotiated settlement agreement
B. holding that the court must determine whether the employees consent to the settlement agreement was knowing and voluntary
C. holding that the analysis to determine whether a claimant has established a reasonable basis to plead a claim for punitive damages is similar to the analysis applied to determine whether the allegations of a complaint are sufficient to state a cause of action
D. holding that under oregon law an agreement must be supported by consideration to be legally enforceable
E. holding that new york common law must be applied to determine whether the parties formed an oral settlement agreement and state statutory law must be applied to determine whether the agreement if any is enforceable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.