With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". valid claims for securities fraud. It does not appear that Ellison was as integrated into the overall structure and management of the various DBSI companies as some of the defendants in the companion case. This is apparent from a glance at Exhibit “A,” which lists Ellison only twice, as a member of the Board of Directors of DBSI, Inc. and of DBSI Reality, Inc. This is in contrast to the defendants in Zazzali v. Swenson, many of whom were officers and/or directors of numerous DBSI entities. (Complaint, Exh. A). For these reasons, the “core operations” inference, which the Court concluded was permissible as to several of the defendants in the Swenson case, falls short in this context. Cf. City of Marysville v. NightHawk Radiology, Holdings, Inc., 2011 WL 4584778 at *21 (D.Idaho 2011) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). In its briefing, the Trustee

A: holding that a matter may constitute a core proceeding under 28 usc  157b2 even though the laundry list of core proceedings under  157b2 does not specifically name this particular circumstance
B: holding that  362k claims are core
C: holding that a lawsuit by a third party creditor against the estate is a core proceeding
D: holding that the core operations inference standing alone usually falls short of pslra standards
D.