With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Proceeding were a core proceeding, the Court would not be required to retain jurisdiction. Where a cause of action is based entirely on state law, Texas state courts retain concurrent jurisdiction: Unlike “cases under [the Bankruptcy Code],” over which federal courts possess exclusive jurisdiction, state and fed eral courts share concurrent jurisdiction over “all civil proceedings arising under [the Bankruptcy Code], or arising in or related to cases under [the Bankruptcy Code].” 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a)-(b). Indeed, a malicious prosecution claim predicated on conduct in an adversary proceeding does not fall within the federal courts’ exclusive section 1334(a) jurisdiction. Graber, 279 S.W.3d at 611. See also In re Middlesex Power Equip. & Marine, Inc., 292 F.3d 61, 67 (1st Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Here, Plaintiffs’ causes of action are based

A: holding that federal jurisdiction over rico claims is concurrent and not exclusive
B: holding that thirdparty nondebtor claims must directly affect the res of the bankruptcy estate
C: holding that a bankruptcy court does not have exclusive jurisdiction over third party claims against nondebtor parties as such claims are not cases under title 11
D: holding that bankruptcy court could not enjoin third party tort claims that would not affect estate
C.