With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". grant the relief R2 seeks without requiring a significant revision of Charter’s reorganization. R2’s argument is, in effect, an attack on the bankruptcy court’s determination that it was appropriate for the Plan to consider all the Charter entities together, even though the bankruptcies were never substantively consolidated. In order to grant a separate valuation of CCI, the district court would have had to overturn the bankruptcy court’s determination that a joint Plan was appropriate. That legal conclusion would require not just that CCI be separately valued, but that all the Charter subsidiaries be revalued and the proceeds of the bankruptcy distributed accordingly. See Compania Internacional Financiera S.A. v. Calpine Corp. (In re Calpine Corp.), 390 B.R. 508, 519-20 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (<HOLDING>), aff'd 354 Fed.Appx. 479 (2d Cir.2009). This

A: holding that even though the bankruptcy court earlier in the case had found that horses owned by the debtor had a value of 13430000 at the confirmation hearing in evaluating the chapter 11 plan of reorganization the bankruptcy court properly reexamined the valuation of the horses and found that the value had decreased due to the fact that the market was depressed and that it would take at least one year to sell the horses emphasis added
B: holding district courts rejection of appellants uncontroverted valuation testimony compelled remand
C: holding that the complaints of a public employee about a reorganization plan were on a matter of public concern even though the employee was primarily motivated by the adverse effect of the plan on himself
D: holding that the debtors valuation was a  key issue  in a reorganization and therefore even if a remand resulted in a higher valuation the plan would need to be substantially changed
D.