Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
544(b), however, puts the trustee in the creditor’s shoes, and allows him to assert claims that only they could assert outside bankruptcy. The claims inherited from the creditors are not arbitrable for the reasons explained in Allegaert Id. at 206-07 (citations omitted). Allegaert, Hays and Hagerstown all involved fraudulent transfer claims. Specifically addressing the arbitrability of preferential transfer claims brought under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code, the court in OHC Liquidation, 2005 WL 670310, at *4, ruled that it was “entirely appropriate” to equate preferential transfers with fraudulent transfers as core proceedings belonging to the trustee and not derivative of the debtor. See also Pardo v. Pacificare of Tex., Inc. (In re APF Co.), 264 B.R. 344, 363 (Bankr.D.Del.2001) . The Hays court’s reasoning that “there is no
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a settlement agreement is an arbitrable subject when the underlying dispute is arbitrable
B. holding that claims brought under section 10b of the securities exchange act and rico claims were arbitrable
C. holding that preferential transfer claims brought under section 547 are not arbitrable
D. holding that unfair competition claims are arbitrable
E. holding that claims under the securities act of 1933 are arbitrable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.