With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of one or more of the entities in which the Debtor held an ownership interest. In such circumstances, this Court expected the Debtor to seek approval from bankruptcy courts to retain Mr. Kaplan to perform accounting services on behalf of his estate. The fact that Mr. Kaplan was performing such services for free or on behalf of one or all of the entities that the Debtor controls did not suspend this requirement. The Debtor’s failure to submit an application for retention of Mr. Kaplan prevented this Court from testing whether his services would benefit the interests of the estate and whether Mr. Kaplan may suffer from a conflict of interest that would otherwise prevent his employment by the Debtor’s estate. See, e.g., In re Liebfried Aviation, Inc., 445 B.R. 30, 34 (Bankr.D.Mass.2011) (<HOLDING>). VI. The Debtor’s Animus for his Creditors’

A: recognizing that debtors failure to submit application for employ ment prevented the court from evaluating accountants purported disinterestedness and lack of a material adverse interest as regards the debtor and the bankruptcy estate
B: holding that the debtors false statements about the location of assets of the estate were material to the proceedings
C: holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code
D: holding creditors lacked standing to file an adversary action asserting the interests of the estate in seeking to prevent a former principal of the debtor from interfering with the chapter 11 reorganization given the lack of showing of the debtors consent and any determination by the bankruptcy court that the suit would be beneficial to the estate and necessary to a fair and efficient resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings
A.