With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 523(a)(4) defalcation prong, as stated by this court in In re Kaplan, 162 B.R. 684, 704 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1993), aff'd sub nom. Kaplan v. First Options of Chicago, Inc., 189 B.R. 882 (E.D.Pa.), reconsideration denied sub nom. First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 198 B.R. 91 (E.D.Pa.1996), that the term “fiduciary capacity” is very narrowly defined. Thus, we stated, at id., that, to give rise to § 523(a)(4) liability, it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to prove only that there was a fiduciary relationship between the parties, but also to prove that there is an express trust held by the fiduciary (debtor) on behalf of the beneficiary (creditor), which did not arise out of the action that created the fiduciary relation ship. See In re Spector, 133 B.R. 733, 739-40 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1991) (<HOLDING>); In re Shervin, 112 B.R. 724, 730-31

A: holding that the fraud or defalcation prong of  523a4 requires the showing of an express trust
B: holding that an attorney is a fiduciary under section 523a4
C: holding that a statutorilyimposed fiduciary obligation created an express trust fiduciary relationship for purposes of  523a4
D: holding that federal law defines fiduciary capacity and fraud or defalcation
A.