Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
process expeditiously, § 1129(e) alone attempts to govern the court’s involvement in that process. 13 . Moreover, to have denied the Motion to Extend Time on November 5th because the Debtor at that point had not been able to make the requisite showing would have been tantamount to denying it due process — the right to be heard, to have all of its evidence on the issue considered, when it had done all it could do to timely put the issues and that evidence before the Court and when the hearing on the Motion to Extend Time had already been commenced. 14 . Section 1121(e)(3)(c) requires that a court sign the an order extending the time period to obtain confirmation before the existing has expired. See In re Caring Heart Home Health Corp., 380 B.R. 908, 910 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. 2008) . The Court notes that the Debtor did submit a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that if the attorney general issues a scope certificate the action must be removed to federal court and the united states must be substituted as the party defendant by the plain language of 28 usc  2679d2 no discretion is given to the district court
B. holding that where a defendant controlled the board of directors it is manifest then that there can be no expectation that the corporation would sue him and if it did it can hardly be said that the prosecution of the suit would be entrusted to proper hands
C. holding that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous no need exists for the court to examine the legislative histo ry and the court must give effect to the plain meaning of the statute
D. holding that statutes must be read so as to give effect to all statutory language
E. holding that the language of the third requirement in section 1121e3 is abundantly clear and must be read as conclusive  if no signed order exists prior to the expiration of the 45 day deadline then no extension can be granted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.