Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
KSU is bound and which clearly require more than moving for dismissal under the Eleventh Amendment. See 34 C.F.R. § 674.49(b)-(e). Therefore, we hold that KSU knowingly and voluntarily waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by agreeing, as a prerequisite to its participation in the Perkins Loan program, to undertake certain enumerated actions in federal bankruptcy court in the event of a claim for discharge filed by the student-borrower. C. Finally, even though we have concluded that KSU waived immunity by entering into an agreement with the DOE which subjects it to the jurisdiction of the federal bankruptcy court, we must examine whether the waiver is valid. This determination hlossberg v. Maryland (In re Creative Goldsmiths of Wash., D.C., Inc.), 119 F.3d 1140, 1147 (4th Cir.1997) , cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 1517, 140
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that although congress expressed its intent to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity in 11 usc  106a it could not do so under seminole tribe
B. holding that  106a  b offend the eleventh amendment
C. holding that judgments for prospective relief that have an ancillary effect on the state treasury do not offend the eleventh amendment
D. holding that the eleventh amendment applies in  1981 litigation
E. holding 11 usc  106a unconstitutional to the extent that it purports to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.