Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
essentially meaningless. The statute’s purpose of protecting employees whose benefits are threatened by their pension plan’s financial instability is best farthered by placing the functions most vital to participants’ well-being, interpreting the plan and determining benefits, with a fiduciary that is bound to act in their best interests. Taken together, the provisions of Title IV establish that, when PBGC is appointed a plan’s trustee following a decree of termination, it is subject to a fiduciary duty in all actions except those involving the function, statutorily reserved to the agency, of calculating the amount of benefits that are guaranteed under § 1322. Burstein v. Ret Account Plan for Employees of Allegheny Health Ed. and Res. Found., 334 F.3d 365, 381-82 & n. 23 (3d Cir.2003) . Thus, plaintiffs may maintain their claims
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a termination of an erisa plans benefits must be based upon the plans terms and language
B. holding that a statute relates to erisa plans for the purposes of preemption if it requires the plans to purchase the  benefits specified in the statute when they purchase a certain kind of common insurance policy
C. holding that pbgc acts as trustee for plans subject to termination except when it calculates guaranteed amounts under  1322
D. holding that the trustee of a nominee trust functions more as an agent than as a true trustee
E. holding that a state law requiring benefit plans to include minimum benefits related to erisa plans
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.