With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". whether a bankruptcy court has the statutory power to issue a report and recommendation in a "core” proceeding where it lacks constitutional authority to enter final judgment, it needed to reach the issue of whether it could finally decide the Trustee's claims. See Memphis Holdings, 461 B.R. at 185-86. 3 . This is the conclusion already reached since Stern by several courts. See, e.g., In re Lyondell Chem. Co., No. 11 Civ. 8251(DLC), 2012 WL 1038749, at *6-9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2012); In re Heller Ehrman LLP, 464 B.R. 348, 354 (N.D.Cal.2011) (“Stern clearly implied that the bankruptcy court lacks constitutional authority to enter final judgment on ... fraudulent conveyance claims....”); In re Coudert Bros. LLP, No. 11-2785(CM), 2011 WL 5593147, at *7-9 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2011) (<HOLDING>). But see Memphis Holdings, 461 B.R. at 186

A: holding plaintiffs state law claims of inter alia tortious interference with contract are preempted by section 301 of lmra
B: holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted
C: holding that stem does not change bankruptcy courts authority to decide fundamental core procedures of bankruptcy court
D: holding bankruptcy court lacked constitutional authority to finally decide trustees private state law claims including inter alia fraudulent conveyance claim
D.