Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
F.2d 711 (5th cir.1985) ], its intended purpose should be upheld so long as it otherwise offends no substantive rights. See In re Adams [734 F.2d 1094 (5th cir.1984) ]. We see no such result here. On the contrary, if bankruptcy court jurisdiction is not permitted over a class action of debtors, Rule 7023 is virtually read out of the rules. Id. at 754 (internal footnotes omitted). ... There is also disagreement about whether the bankruptcy court may exercise jurisdiction over a nationwide class of debtors or is limited to exercising jurisdiction over debtors whose petitions are filed within the same judicial district. Compare, e.g., In re Noletto, 244 B.R. 845, 849 (Bankr.S.D.Ala.2000) (permitting nationwide class) with Barrett v. Avco Fin. Servs. Mgmt. Co., 292 B.R. 1, 8 (D.Mass.2003) . The class at issue in this case was limited
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members
B. holding court lacks jurisdiction over putative class members whose bankruptcies were discharged outside of judicial district
C. holding that it is not necessary that all putative class members share identical claims
D. holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification
E. holding court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over the governments prosecutorial discretion decisions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.