With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". DEFENDANT PERSOFSKY’S MOTION FOR A LIFT OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY TO PROCEED IN ARBITRATION.” The pertinent language provides: "Furthermore, it is respectfully requested that the automatic stay be lifted and Defendant Persofsky be permitted to proceed with his action against the Debtor and Non-Debtor Officers and Directors in Arbitration.” (Doc. A13 at 16). Despite Persofsky’s unorthodox pleading, the Court elected to accept the submission as a motion for relief from the automatic stay during a telephone conference with the parties on August 19, 2002. 4 . This principle has been further developed by the Second, Third, Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts. See e.g. Gulf States Exploration v. Manville Forest Products Corp. (In re Manville Forest Products Corp.), 896 F.2d 1384, 1389—90 (2d Cir.1990)(<HOLDING>); Southeastern Sprinkler Co., Inc. v. Meyertech

A: holding that because creditor did not file a proof of claim on a prepetition contract matter the peculiar powers of the bankruptcy court had not been invoked
B: holding that when a creditor files a proof of claim the bankruptcy court has core jurisdiction to determine that claim even if it was a prepetition contract claim arising under state law
C: holding that when a state  files a proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding the state waives its eleventh amendment immunity with regard to the bankruptcy estates claims that arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the states claim
D: holding that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaims asserted by the bankruptcy estate against a creditor where the claim is a state law action independent of the federal bankruptcy law and not necessarily resolvable by a ruling on the creditors proof of claim in the bankruptcy emphasis added
B.