With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Schedules is legally unavailing. Numerous courts have held that the doctrine of judicial estoppel has “no relevance and applicability to valuation of property in a case under Title 11.” In re Victorian Park Assocs., 189 B.R. 147, 150 (Bankr. N.D.Ill.1995); In re Kelley, 163 B.R. 27, 34 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1993); In re Woolley’s Parkway Ctr., Inc., 147 B.R. 996, 1001 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1992). Indeed, “[t]he argument that the valuation at the beginning of a case is cast in concrete and is the law of the case for all purposes not only defies logic but is clearly contrary to the specific language of § 506 of the Code.” In re JE Livestock, Inc., 375 B.R. 892 (10th Cir. BAP 2007) (internal marks omitted); see also Williams v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank (In re Williams), 850 F.2d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 1988) (<HOLDING>). In the case at bar, Carter very credibly

A: holding that even though the bankruptcy court earlier in the case had found that horses owned by the debtor had a value of 13430000 at the confirmation hearing in evaluating the chapter 11 plan of reorganization the bankruptcy court properly reexamined the valuation of the horses and found that the value had decreased due to the fact that the market was depressed and that it would take at least one year to sell the horses emphasis added
B: holding that remedies provided in the bankruptcy code for enforcing a chapter 11 plan of reorganization are not exclusive
C: 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
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
A.