With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the debtor lacked a good-faith statutory basis for claiming the exemption. In Peterson, the Eighth Circuit found that the debtors had a good-faith statutory basis for seeking to exempt their interest in the house. The trustee’s counsel asserts, in his brief, that the Debtors’ claim of exemption lacks a good-faith statutory basis because “a comprehensive review of existing case law reveals that the Debtors may not claim an exemption in an ERISA-qualified pension plan under RSMo (sic) Section 513.-430(10)(e) ... [because a] majority of the courts ... have held that ERISA preempts a state’s attempt to make a debtor’s interest in these plans exempt.” Trustee’s Memorandum of Law, at 2 (cites omitted). As the trustee concedes, only a majority of courts have held that ERISA preem .Mo.1990) (<HOLDING>) aff'd by 126 B.R. 348 (W.D.Mo.1990) (currently

A: holding that erisa does not preempt professional malpractice claims
B: holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan
C: holding that erisa does not preempt section 22213b7
D: holding that erisa does not preempt revstatmo  51343010e because it is entirely consistent with both erisa and the bankruptcy code
D.