Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
him without the consent of the other partners from any transaction connected with the formation, conduct, or liquidation of the partnership or from any use by him of its property. He claims that the words “hold as trustee” establish an express trust, that all partners are trustees for the rest of the partnership, and that a partner is therefore a fiduciary within the meaning of the act. However, under this statute, the trust arises only when the partner derives profits without consent of the partnership; it is the sort of trust ex maleficio not included within the purview of § 523(a)(4). See Davis, 293 U.S. at 333, 55 S.Ct. at 153-54; Teichman v. Teichman (In re Teichman), 774 F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir.1985). But see Holmes v. Kraus (In re Kraus), 37 B.R. 126, 130 (Bkcy E.D.Mich.1984) . Montana has an identical code section to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiff bears the burden when relying on the discovery rule
B. holding that when language is exactly the same in two statutory provisions the meaning of that language is also identical
C. holding that identical language in montana postconviction relief statute bars application of laches
D. holding that the law of michigan rather than the forum applied to manufacturers claim of attorneyclient privilege in a products liability suit because the communication took place in michigan and therefore michigan had most significant relationship to communication
E. holding that partners are fiduciaries for the purpose of  523a4 relying on michigan statute with identical language
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.