With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". new affirmative defense remedy under the ECOA that a debtor may use to invalidate the entire underlying debt when no language providing for such a defense is expressly or implicitly contained within the ECOA. See Ami L. Dilorenzo, Regulation B: How Lenders Can Fight Back Against the Affirmative Use of Regula .P., 51 F.3d 28, 32 (3d Cir.1995) (reasoning, at least in part, that a plaintiff could proceed with a defensive ECOA claim after the statutory period had run, by way of the right of recoupment); Integra Bank/Pittsburgh v. Freeman, 839 F.Supp. 326, 330 n. 6 (E.D.Pa.1993) (recognizing an action by way of recoupment, which essentially functions as a defense, will lie where a party possesses an otherwise time-barred ECOA claim); In re Remington, 19 B.R. 718, 721 (Bankr.D.Colo.1982) (<HOLDING>); PNC Bank, Del. v. Turner, 659 A.2d 222, 225

A: holding a plaintiff cannot assert a violation of the ecoa as an affirmative defense
B: holding that ecoa violation cannot be asserted as affirmative defense
C: holding even though an affirmative action for damages is barred the debtor may assert an ecoa violation defensively in the nature of recoupment
D: holding the recoupment doctrine could allow a spouse to assert an ecoa affirmative defense against a creditor even after the statute of limitations had run
C.