Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
did not intend to fashion a minefield out of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. In fact, the legislative history mentions the provision only in passing, offering as an example of compliance that the debtor meet the disclosure requirements of § 1125 to satisfy § 1129(a)(2). Certainly, if Congress had meant that any infraction, no matter how early on in the case, no matter how minor the breach, and regardless of whether the court has remedied the violations, should result in a denial of confirmation, Congress would have given some clearer indication in the legislative history or made the statutory provision far more express. In re Landing Assocs., Ltd., 157 B.R. 791, 811 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1993); see also In re Heritage Organization, L.L.C., 375 B.R. 230, 309 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2007) . Bankruptcy courts limit their inquiry under §
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the debtors negotiations with a creditor to include certain modifications in the plan in exchange for acceptance did not preclude confirmation under  1129a2
B. holding that order denying confirmation of plan became final when upon being notified that the debtors did not intend to seek confirmation of an alternate plan the court dismissed their case
C. holding in the instant case although creditor obtained relief from the automatic stay it failed to object or appeal from the confirmation order accordingly creditor is bound by the confirmation order
D. recognizing that when a creditor does not receive adequate notice the creditor is not bound by the confirmation order
E. holding that provision in chapter 13 plan discharging postpetition interest on a student loan is binding on creditor under theory of res judicata where objection was not raised prior to plan confirmation and confirmation order was not appealed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.