Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
an insolvent financial institution.”). While neither the D’Oench doctrine nor 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) prevents plaintiffs from asserting affirmative claims or defenses that do not depend on “agreements,” see Garrett v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp., 938 F.2d 591, 595 (5th Cir.1991) (citing Langley v. FDIC, 484 U.S. 86, 93-4, 108 S.Ct. 396, 402, 98 L.Ed.2d 340 (1987); FDIC v. McClanahan, 795 F.2d 512, 515 (5th Cir.1986)), court have interpreted the term “agreement” very broadly. Beitzell & Co. v. FDIC (In re Beitzell), 163 B.R. 637, 647 (Bankr.D.D.C. 1993); see, e.g., Langley v. FDIC, 484 U.S. 86, 90-93, 108 S.Ct. 396, 400-62, 98 L.Ed.2d 340 (1987) (interpreting “agreement” to include all conditions to the parties’ performance of the bargain); FDIC v. Giammettei, 34 F.3d 51, 58 (2d Cir.1994) . The Supreme Court has noted that the term
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an implicit covenant of good faith and fair dealing constitutes an agreement under 12 usc  1823e
B. recognizing cause of action for implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in atwill employment contract
C. recognizing that evidence of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may support punitive damages
D. holding that an insurers violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing was actionable under the consumer protection act
E. holding that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to performance under a contract
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.