Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
have passed into the hands of bona fide creditors or purchasers for value, as long as any debts of the corporation are unpaid, the holders of the assets take them charged with a trust in favor of the creditors”); Rice v. City of Columbia, 143 S.C. 516, 141 S.E. 705, 712 (1928) (“[T]he very moment a corporation, banking or other, reaches the point of insolvency (presumptively, as a matter of course, to the knowledge of the managing agents of the corporation), certainly in the immediate prospect of dissolution and bankruptcy, its assets become impressed with a solemn trust to be distributed ratably among its creditors, subject, of course, to liens; and the managing agents become the administrators of that trust.”); see also Stewart v. Ficken, 151 S.C. 424, 149 S.E. 164, 165 (1929) ; Cumberland Wood Prods., Inc. v. Bennett, 308
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the right of a creditor to sue a corporate director for breach of fiduciary duty
B. holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa  502a3 under a breach of fiduciary duty theory did not have a cause of action when the alleged breach of fiduciary duty was a failure to distribute benefits in accordance with the plan
C. holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was preempted by fehba
D. holding a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty will not lie where the claim of breach is dependent upon the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties
E. holding that missouri law applied to the plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim because it is corporate law that defines the contours of that duty
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.