Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that Article 9 provisions apply to any assignment of accounts has also been developed in case law in states whose commercial codes substantially parallel provisions of U.C.C. Article 9. See Major’s Furniture Mart, Inc. v. Castle Credit Corp., Inc., 602 F.2d 538 (3d Cir.1979) (stating that Article 9 governs all transactions in accounts, including both sales of accounts and secured interests in accounts, thus even an outright buyer of accounts by definition has a security interest in the accounts which it purchases); Valley Bank of Nevada v. City of Henderson, 528 F.Supp. 907 (D.C.Nev.1981) (noting that any transaction intended to create a security interest in accounts and any sale of accounts falls within the scope of Article 9); and In re Cripps, 31 B.R. 541 (Bankr.W.D.Okla.1983) . The official comments to the U.C.C.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a seller could enforce an arbitration provision against a buyer even though only the buyer had signed the provision
B. holding that property seized by a creditor prior to debtors bankruptcy was property of the estate even though creditor  the irs  held a secured interest  a tax lien  in the property
C. holding that where buyer had opportunity to inspect goods and failed to inform seller in timely manner of defects buyer deemed to have accepted goods pursuant to  672606
D. holding that seller carried insurance for benefit of buyer and held proceeds in trust for buyer when seller agreed to maintain insurance until possession date but bam burned before buyer took possession
E. holding that where an outright buyer of accounts receivable failed to perfect her interest in debtors account by filing a financing statement the buyer could not prevail over the bankruptcy trustee as lien creditor
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.