Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the subfreights prevented, as a matter of law, INB from validly receiving the subfreight fund, and that therefore the transfer of funds from POSCO could not have extinguished Cornish’s lien because it did not constitute legal payment of the subfreights to the charterer or its agent. Under our holding above, Cornish’s lien did not attach to the specific funds transferred by POSCO to INB; at the same time, this transfer was ineffective to extinguish Cornish's lien on POSCO's debt for subfreights. We note, in addition, that plaintiffs' argument incorrectly assumes that a Rule C arrest warrant is effective against property that comes into the possession of a garnishee after service of the warrant. See Reibor International Ltd. v. Cargo Carriers (KACZ-CO.) Ltd., 759 F.2d 262 (2d Cir.1985) ; see also Union Planters National Bank v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that exclusionary rule does not extend to proceedings other than criminal trials
B. holding that an insurers obligation to defend an insured was a property interest subject to prejudgment attachment
C. holding that the attachment statute which did not expressly reach property beyond territorial limits of state would not be construed to apply to property outside state
D. holding that rule b attachment does not extend to afteracquired property
E. holding that the waiver of immunity from other liability did not explicitly waive immunity from prejudgment attachment but supporting the attachment on other grounds
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.