With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (In re Beaty), 306 F.3d 914 (9th Cir.2002), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals thoroughly addressed an analogous dischargeability action under § 523(a)(3)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code in which the defendant invoked laches. The Beaty court held that laches is available as a defense in a § 523(a)(3)(B) dischargeability action involving a debt not listed or scheduled by a creditor. Beaty at 923. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals enumerated four reasons that laches is available as a defense in a § 523(a)(3)(B) action: (1) Congress “intended laches to act as a constraint” in other similar bankruptcy actions; (2) the “at any time” language of Rule 4007(b) is not found in § 523(a)(3)(B) itself; (3) laches is “primarily concerned with prejudice” and does no S.Ct. 451, 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959) (<HOLDING>). However, the Beaty court disagreed with these

A: recognizing laches as an affirmative defense
B: holding that equitable defense of laches is inapplicable to claims of fraud
C: recognizing laches as an equitable defense to a motion to reopen
D: holding that a laches defense is inapplicable to a statute providing that a motion to vacate a sentence may be made at any time
D.