Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
aff'd, 912 F.2d 464 (4th Cir. 1990). Rather, " 'actual intent’ to defraud must be shown.” Id. See also In re Cushman Bakery, 526 F.2d 23, 32 (1st Cir. 1975) (noting that "[although every preferential payment to a creditor has the effect of hindering or delaying other creditors from collecting their judgments, ... granting a security interest to secure funds with which the debtor intends to pay a preexisting debt does not necessarily imply an intent to 'hinder, delay or defraud creditors’[.]”); Mayo v. Pioneer Bank & Trust Co., 270 F.2d 823, 831 (1959) ("Although a transfer may have the effect of hindering or delaying or defrauding creditors, incidental effect is not enough to satisfy the requirements of actual intent to defraud.”); In re Decker, 295 F.Supp. 501, 515 (W.D.Va.1969) , aff’d, 420 F.2d 378 (4th Cir. 1980). 10 .
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the repayment of an antecedent debt constitutes fair consideration
B. holding that a preexisting or antecedent debt may constitute sufficient consideration to support a mortgage
C. holding that effect of bankruptcy discharge under arizona law is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debtor
D. recognizing wellsettled law that a conveyance made in good faith whether for an antecedent debt or a present consideration is not forbidden even though it may have the effect of hindering or delaying creditors by removing from their reach assets of the debtor
E. holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.