Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
The second question we must address is whether the plaintiffs’ cause of action is time-barred. The district court addressed both the general five-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims found at Ark.Code Ann. § 16-56-111(b), and the general three-year statute of limitations for constructive fraud claims found at Ark.Code Ann. § 16-56-105(3), and concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims were not barred under either statute. We agree with the district court’s conclusion, but not with its reasoning. Hav ing determined that NEI may be subject to liability for the original developer’s obligations pursuant to the Arkansas TimeShare Act, we conclude that Time-Share Act’s statute of limitations governs this action. See Shelton v. Fiser, 340 Ark. 89, 8 S.W.3d 557, 560 (2000) . The Time-Share Act actually contains two
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a general statute is superseded by a more recent specific statute only if the two statutes are in conflict
B. holding that where there is a conflict between statutes the more recent statute is controlling and a specific provision prevails over a general provision relating to the same subject matter
C. holding that specific statutes create exceptions to general statutes therefore if a provision of a specific statute is inconsistent with one in a general statute on the same subject the specific statute controls
D. holding that under arkansas law a specific statute of limitations involving the particular subject matter governs over more general statutes
E. recognizing that a specific statute controls over a general one
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.