With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". L.B.), 161 B.R. 891 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1993); First Nat’l Bank v. Kanawha Trace Dev. Partners (In re Kanawha Trace Dev. Partners), 87 B.R. 892, 896-97 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1988). Bank of America notes that in Lazarus and Kana-wha, the non-debtors were contributing their own capital to the debtors’ reorganization efforts, whereas here the guarantors are not. The critical fact, however, as the court sees it is that the non-debtor litigation threatens the ability of the debtors to obtain necessary funding for the reorganization plan, regardless of where or from whom the funding is coming. Just like in Lazarus and in Kanawha, the Guarantor Arbitration will likely impair the debtors’ ability to fund their reorganization plan. See, e.g., Gander Partners, LLC v. Harris Bank, N.A., 432 B.R. at 788 (<HOLDING>). Based on the foregoing, the court finds that

A: holding that where an action is brought by the debtors at the initial proceeding the appeal of that action is not a continuing proceeding against the debtors
B: holding pursuant to bankruptcy rule 7004b9 that because the creditor mailed the complaint and summons to the debtors attorney and to the address listed in the debtors bankruptcy petition service of process was sufficient even if the debtors were out of the country and did not actually receive notice of the complaint and summons
C: holding that payments made by third parties on behalf of debtors are disbursements notwithstanding the debtors lack of control over the funds
D: recognizing that the debtors principals credit standings could be adversely affected endangering the debtors by decreasing their ability to guarantee the debtors efforts to refinance if litigation against the principals were not stayed
D.