Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
prior litigation. See Response to Motion, dkt. no. 22, P-2 However, the Defendant contends that the issues decided by the state court are not identical to the issues concerning the nondischargeability claim because the April 4 Order did not establish the existence of an express trust. In support, the Defendant asserts, without any supporting authority, that a fiduciary relationship under § 523(a)(4) is limited to express and technical trusts. The Defendant is mistaken. The Seventh Circuit has made clear that a fiduciary duty for purposes of § 523(a)(4) also applies in circumstances which, “while not involving trusts in a formal sense, seemed to call for the imposition of the same high standard.” In re Marchiando, at 1115; see also In re McDade, 282 B.R. 650, 658 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2002) ; In re Odeh, 431 B.R. 807, 816
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that certain fiduciary duty claims did not arise out of the underlying contractual provisions
B. holding that a statutorilyimposed fiduciary obligation created an express trust fiduciary relationship for purposes of  523a4
C. holding that express warranty claims that could only arise out of fda approval are preempted
D. recognizing that fiduciary relationships may arise for nondischargeability purposes outside of express trusts
E. holding that jury verdict in prior state court fraud action including finding that debtor willfully breached fiduciary duty had preclusive effect on courts determination of nondischargeability based on defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity under  523a4
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.