Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“clearly envisions that asbestos claims will be paid periodically as they accrue and as they are allowed,” since it requires courts to ensure that there will be sufficient funds available for both future demands and present claims to receive similar treatment. In re W. Asbestos Co., 313 B.R. 832, 842-43 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.2003). Therefore, differences in the timing of distributions and other procedural variations that have a legitimate basis do not generally violate § 1123(a)(4) unless they produce a substantive difference in a claimant’s opportunity to recover. See In re New Power Co., 438 F.3d at 1122-23 (concluding that a plan provision did not violate § 1123(a)(4) in part because it was “procedural rather than substantive”); cf. In re Dow Corning Corp., 280 F.3d 648, 660 (6th Cir.2002) . Under that standard, none of the provisions
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the parentchild relationship is far more precious than any property rights
B. holding that where the claimants were servicemen injured or killed while on active duty due to the negligence of others in the armed forces they could not seek recovery under the ftca for injuries sustained that arose out of or were incident to their military service
C. holding a claimants injury report to a fellow employee did not satisfy the act because the claimants supervisor did not learn of the injury until six months later
D. holding that alj may not base adverse credibility finding on his perceptions of claimants pain at the hearing where record shows objective evidence of claimants pain
E. holding that a difference in the procedural protections offered to certain claimants violated  1123a4 because some claimants were accorded far more effective recovery rights than others
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.