With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Circuit disagreed with the trustee’s analysis in Kiwi because it ignored the special rights those creditors had under section 365. Id. at 321. Had the challenged payments not been made pre-petition, the Third Circuit reasoned, the creditors would have been entitled to receive those payments post-petition under section 365. Id. The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion with respect to a creditor who had been paid its pre-petition claim pursuant to section 1110 of the Bankruptcy Code. Kiwi 344 F.3d at 321 (citing Seidle v. GATX Leasing, 778 F.2d 659 (11th Cir.1985)). The Court finds the Kiwi and Seidle holdings persuasive in this case. Post-petition, the Court entered the Essential Suppliers Order. (D.I.32.) Pursuant to that Orde Lemmerz Int’l, Inc.), 313 B.R. 189, 193 (D.Del.2004) (<HOLDING>). However, the Court finds that Hayes Lem-merz

A: recognizing that the critical question is whether any present violation exists
B: holding that sentencing is a critical stage of criminal proceedings and the offer of counsel must be renewed at each critical stage where the defendant appears without counsel
C: holding that the most critical factor is the degree of success obtained
D: holding that the critical vendor order was not a defense because it permitted rather  than mandated payment of prepetition claims of critical vendors
D.