Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the Statute of Elizabeth Ross has also argued that PCS may not set aside conveyances under the Statute of Elizabeth where PCS has not established the precise amount of the underlying debt. See, e.g., ECF No. 343 at 12-13 (“PCS has not established its ability to set aside the conveyance in any amount because it didn’t prove at trial that it’s owed monies from Ross in any particular amount.”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(b) and South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 18(b) allow actions for recovery of a debt and fraudulent conveyance to proceed contemporaneously, rather than previously where a creditor was required to obtain a return nulla bona before commencing an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance. See also Lebovitz v. Mudd, 293 S.C. 49, 358 S.E.2d 698, 700-01 (1987) . Ross argues that, nonetheless, PCS is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that once rule 18b went into effect no creditor suing under the statute of elizabeth needs to reduce debt to a judgment and obtain a return nulla bona before bringing suit
B. holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or
C. recognizing need to balance interests of debt or and creditor in determining nature of protection to be afforded creditor
D. holding llcs were entitled to notice of proceedings supplemental instituted by a judgment creditor to attempt to obtain judgment debtors interests in the companies to pay judgment debt
E. holding that an assignee of a debt can step into the shoes of the original creditor for purpose of  523a2a
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.