Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
F.Supp.2d 640 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 345 F.3d 78 (2d Cir.2003). As Judge Spatt has already recognized in this case, the holding in the district court’s decision in Pechinski required more than the mere fact that the fee at issue was associated with the termination of the debt obligation to the lender defendant; rather, the district court also specifically relied upon the fact that the fee at issue in that case was related to a service requested by the borrower — processing fees regarding a refinancing with another lender — and would not have otherwise been required by the borrower in the lifespan of the loan. See McAnaney, 357 F.Supp.2d at 586 (“Pechinski held that the fees were not finance charges because they were not required by the creditor”); see also Pechinski, 238 F.Supp.2d at 643 . The critical inquiry in determining whether a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense
B. holding that the defense of insufficient process was waived because it was not raised by the defendant in its answer but later in its response to the plaintiffs request for default judgment
C. holding that the defendants violated tila as a matter of law by failing to disclose as part of the finance charge the charge imposed for payment of federal express delivery
D. holding that required courier fees must be included in the finance charge
E. holding that the charged assignment fee was not includable in the finance charge where it was imposed because of plaintiffs specific request that defendant assign the mortgage to another lending institution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.