Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
relevant law of the two states is similar. Robinson bases its argument that the Committee lacks standing on the holding in Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. v. Wagoner, 944 F.2d 114, 118 (2d Cir.1991), that when “a bankrupt corporation has joined with a third party in defrauding its creditors, the trustee cannot recover against the third party for the damage to the creditors.” Moreover, when the alleged malfeasor is the corporation’s sole shareholder and decision-maker, the Wagoner rule bars the trustee from suing even if the trustee claims that the debtor was harmed because, in that situat kruptcy trustee had no standing to sue a professional for aiding and abetting the unlawful investment activity of the president and sole shareholder of the bankrupt company); Mediators, 105 F.3d at 822 . Nonetheless, the Committee, citing Reider v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the interest of the public  especially the debtor and creditors  could limit compensation to a debtors counsel
B. holding that the debtor in possession could utilize the strongarm powers of the trustee to avoid an unperfected security interest even though the debtor knew of the interest prior to bankruptcy because the two are distinct entities and the debtor in possessions responsibility is to preserve the estates assets for the benefit of the creditors
C. holding debtor could cure after the debtor had previously made payments to the bank
D. holding that the creditors committee could not sue third party aidersandabettors because the participation of the sole shareholder and decisionmaker of the debtor rendered the debtor a participant
E. holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.