Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
case the debtor was clearly aware of the Plaintiffs’ claim, as evidenced by the fact that the lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs led to the bankruptcy filing. Thus, equity requires the allowance of the informal proof of claim because debtor’s sole argument is that Plaintiffs failed to follow a procedural step. Defendant Schoch argues that Nikolout-sos “is distinguishable from the case at bar because the creditor in that case filed a Complaint to Determine Dischargeability and specifically told the Court that the Complaint was being filed as an informal proof of claim.” [Docket No. 51, ¶ 44, Response to Plaintiffs’ Position Statement] While that may be accurate, an informal proof of claim can come in many forms. See, e.g., In re Anderson-Walker Indus., Inc., 798 F.2d 1285, 1288 (9th Cir.1986) ; In re Pizza of Hawaii, Inc., 761 F.2d 1374,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring  a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee
B. holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or
C. holding that bankruptcy discharge eliminates only a debtors personal liability and not the debt itself and that a bankruptcy trustee stands in the shoes of the debtor and can bring a legal malpractice claim as trustee
D. holding that letters notifying the trustee of a debt constitute an informal proof of claim
E. holding that a debt collectors filing of a lawsuit on a debt that appears to be timebarred  is an unfair and unconscionable means of collecting the debt
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.