Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a party should not be held to the terms of the contract. See Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Gerber Truck Serv., Inc., 870 F.2d 1148, 1149 (7th Cir.1989) (noting that the federal “receiver of a failed bank ... [is] entitled to enforce [a] writing without regard to understandings or defenses applicable to the original parties”); McCullough v. FDIC, 987 F.2d 870, 872 (1st Cir.1993) (reading Langley to mean that “a contractually bound party’s attempt to avoid a contractual obligation and/or to seek damages through a claim of misrepresentation is nothing more than a challenge to the truthfulness of a warranty ... and a concomitant claim that the truthfulness of that warranty was a condition of the first party’s performance”); FDIC v. Bell, 892 F.2d 64, 65-66 (10th Cir.1989) . Thus, when a party alleges, on the basis of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that failure to disclose that the defendant was involved on both the sellers and buyers side of transactions constitutes a concealment of a material fact sufficient to support a charge of fraud
B. holding claim based on failure to disclose information to the epa preempted
C. holding that whether attorney complied with fiduciary duty to disclose all material information was question of fact
D. holding state has affirmative duty to disclose favorable and material evidence to defense
E. holding that langley barred a defense based on banks failure to disclose a material fact regarding financial condition of company whose obligations were guaranteed by defendant
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.