With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". extended the earmarking doctrine beyond the guarantor scenario to those where a new creditor, even one without a prior relationship with the debtor, facilitated payment of an existing debt. This caselaw has come to recognize that regardless of the lender’s prior relationship with the debtor, or lack thereof, replacing one creditor with another of equal priority does not diminish the estate and thus no voidable preference results. In re Bohlen, 859 F.2d at 565-566. There is no doubt under current caselaw that the earmarking doctrine applies both in those cases where the money to pay the debt comes from a guarantor and where the outside creditor is merely a lender of substitute funds. Accord In re Grabill Corp., 135 B.R. 101, 109 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill.1991). Cf. In re Bohlen, 859 F.2d at 565 (<HOLDING>). By the same token, modern caselaw has come to

A: holding that if presented with this situation as a matter of first impression the court would not extend the doctrine where the new lender is not a guarantor because in that case the earmarking doctrine does not help either the new creditor nor the debtor
B: recognizing doctrine
C: holding law of case doctrine is procedural and does not go to jurisdiction of court
D: recognizing the collateral order doctrine for the first time
A.