Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
from that before the court in 1997. In essence, the argument is that a change in factual circumstances after the prior determination bars the application of collateral estoppel here. 2. Changed Circumstances Courts appear to waiver in considering whether “changed circumstances” vitiates the application of the “identical issue” element of collateral estoppel, or whether it presents an equitable exception to the application of collateral estoppel, even if the “issue” to be determined is the same. Compare Anspach ex rel. Anspach v. City of Philadelphia, 380 Fed. Appx. 180, 184 (3d Cir.2010) (using “identity of issues” terminology) and Hawksbill Sea Turtle v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 126 F.3d 461, 477 (3d Cir.1997) (same) with Leventry v. Price, 319 F.Supp.2d 562, 568 (W.D.Pa.2004)  and Ramallo Bros. Printing, Inc. v. El Dia,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that collateral estoppel applies to  1983 claims
B. recognizing the doctrine of collateral estoppel in agency proceedings
C. holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to arbitration award
D. holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel
E. holding that the debtor has the burden of showing that collateral estoppel applies
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.