With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(l), the facts of this case are such that the USDA’s collection efforts began as a violation of the automatic stay, but ultimately became a violation of the discharge injunction upon the termination of the automatic stay once the Debtor received her discharge. The USDA notes as much, seemingly to refute the idea that any fees are warranted under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) because the automatic stay was no longer in effect by the time Debtor’s counsel contacted the USDA. We find, however, that this is a distinction without a difference as attorney’s fees would otherwise have been available as compensatory damages under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) for the USDA’s violation of the discharge injunction and would be analyzed under the same standard. See, e.g., In re Pratt, 462 F.3d at 17 (<HOLDING>); Bessette v. Avco Fin. Servs., Inc., 230 F.3d

A: holding a bankruptcy court is empowered to reopen a bankruptcy case on its own motion under 11 usc  105a
B: holding bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue injunction of state court litigation against debtors principal stating this power under 11 usc  105a  includes the authority to enjoin litigants from pursuing actions in other courts that threaten the integrity of the debtors estate
C: holding debtors are entitled to establish and recover their compensatory damages under 11 usc  105a for violations of the discharge injunction
D: holding that debtors are not barred from bringing an avoidance action under 11 usc  522f after their discharge has been granted
C.