Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
arbitration those judicial remedies that the drafting party with superior bargaining power is likely to need, while providing no such exemption for the non-drafting party with inferior bargaining power. See Rivera v. American General Financial Services, Inc., 2011-NMSC-033, ¶¶ 53-54, 150 N.M. 398, 259 P.3d at 818-19; Cordova v. World Fin. Corp. of N.M., 2009-NMSC-021, ¶ 32, 146 N.M. 256, 208 P.3d at 907-10. By contrast, an arbitration agreement that contains a bilateral carve-out that explicitly excludes from mandatory arbitration a certain set of claims is not substantively unconscionable, even if the party with superior bargaining power is more likely to assert the excluded claims in a judicial forum. See Dalton v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 2016-NMSC-035, ¶ 21, 385 P.3d at 624 . Hatton marshals three arguments for
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an arbitration agreement between a lender and a borrower that included a bilateral exception for claims less than 10000 was not substantively unconscionable even if one party is substantively more likely to bring small claims actions  
B. holding that based upon the facts presented the arbitration provisions restricting or banning class actions are substantively unconscionable
C. holding district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to sever numerous substantively unconscionable terms from arbitration agreement
D. holding unconscionable arbitration provision that applied to all claims brought by borrower in reverse mortgage contract but not claims brought by the drafting party the lender
E. holding that a 30day limitations provision is substantively unconscionable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.