Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
States, 250 U.S. 273, 279, 39 S.Ct. 468, 470, 63 L.Ed. 979 (1919)), we note that in this unusual circumstance we need not find a violation of section 441b before addressing the separation of powers claim. The Supreme Court in similar situations — when plaintiffs challenged the constitutional composition or character of a tribunal — determined the constitutional status issue without reaching the merits. See, e.g., Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 859, 106 S.Ct. 3245, 3261, 92 L.Ed.2d 675 (1986) (upholding constitutionality of CFTC’s authority to adjudicate common law counterclaims without passing on the merits of the counterclaim); Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 56, 87, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 2864, 2880, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982) . Appellants claim that the composition of the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the federal criminal code
B. recognizing that the claim at issue was one under state common law between two private parties the experts in the federal system at resolving common law counterclaims  are the article iii courts
C. holding that a federal court may adjudicate claims for which there is no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction if the nonjurisdictional claims are related to other claims for which the does have jurisdiction
D. holding that the bankruptcy courts jurisdiction to adjudicate common law claims violated article iii without deciding the claims
E. holding that article 2 of the ucc preempts common law claims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.