With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court’s order sanctioning them for bad faith under the bankruptcy court’s inherent authority. Reviewing the sanctions order for abuse of discretion, Miller v. Cardinale (In re DeVille), 361 F.3d 539, 547 (9th Cir.2004), we affirm. 1. Appellants received appropriate notice and process, and the bankruptcy court did not violate their due process rights. The BAP correctly held that the sanctions here were civil in nature because they were compensatory. See Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir.2005) (“It is well-established that compensatory fines are civil sanctions in the context of contempt proceedings.”). 2. The BAP correctly held that Appellants failed to show prejudice from the alleged ex parte communication. See Ludwig v. Astrue, 681 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Given the nature of the communication at

A: holding that prejudice must be shown from an ex parte communication
B: holding that special damages must be shown to be reasonable and necessarily resulting from accident
C: holding that a defendant must make a colorable showing that an ex parte communication occurred
D: holding that bad faith andor prejudice must be shown by clear and convincing evidence
A.