With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Proof of a defense to the Trustees’ original collection action alone is insufficient. A meritorious claim or defense in this case must allege facts upon which I could legally overturn the settlement agreement itself. By its very definition, a settlement agreement ends litigation, see Wood v. Virginia Hauling Co., 528 F.2d 423, 425 (4th Cir.1975), and unless Virginia Lee pleads facts which could prove that the settlement agreement is invalid, no action is cognizable on the original claim. See Montagna v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 221 Va. 336, 269 S.E.2d 838, 844 (1980). 15 . As a practical matter, subsection (5) of Rule 60(b) is generally applied where prospective application of the judgment or order would be unjust. See United States v. Georgia Power Co., 634 F.2d 929, 934 (5th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Rule 60(b)(5) provides, in pertinent part,

A: holding that a significant change in decisional law will permit the district court in its sound discretion to prospectively modify a permanent injunction under rule 60b5
B: holding that a party may obtain relief from a district courts permanent injunction pursuant to rule 60b5
C: holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion
D: holding that a district court has wide discretion to modify an injunction based on changed circumstances or new facts
A.