Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
it unnecessary to address these arguments because of our resolution of a necessary threshold question: Does Section 553 apply to the transactions at issue here? The Turners argue that the administrative offsets were not setoffs within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 553 at all, but rather were voidable preferences falling under 11 U.S.C. § 547. We agree. Setoff is an equitable right of a creditor to deduct a debt it owes to the debtor from a claim it has against the debtor arising out of a separate transaction; it “allows parties that owe mutual debts to state the accounts between them, subtract one from the other and pay only the balance.” Matter of Bevill, Bresler & Schulman Asset Management Corp., 896 F.2d 54, 57 (3d Cir.1990); see also Jones v. England, 782 P.2d 119, 122 (Okla.1989) . The United States has an inherent right of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the existence of the special relationship
B. recognizing common law privileges
C. recognizing common law right of access to judicial documents
D. holding that federal government agencies have a common law right to interagency setoff
E. recognizing existence of common law right of setoff in oklahoma
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.