With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". We reject this argument. It conflates the concepts of “arising under Title 11” and arising because of Chapter 11. An action that arises because of a bankruptcy proceeding does not necessarily arise under the Bankruptcy Code. The Trustee’s antitrust claims are not core matters. Antitrust claims do not arise under the Bankruptcy Code and they are properly brought before an Article III court. See Castlerock 781 F.2d at 162. The outcome of the Trustee’s cause of action under the Sherman Act will not affect any parties’ rights under the administration of the estate. Because the claims could not have been decided by the bankruptcy court, they cannot be precluded by the res judicata effect of the bankruptcy court’s sale order. Cf. Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank 896 F.2d 979, 983 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Howell Hydrocarbons, Inc. v. Adams, 897 F.2d

A: holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings
B: holding that the lender liability claims of the debtor are precluded by res judicata
C: holding that lender liability claims are noncore and thus not barred by res judicata effect of bankruptcy proceedings
D: holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings
C.