With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". argues that the § 341(a) creditors’ meeting was continued and concluded on August 23, 2006. The district court held that the § 341(a) creditors’ meeting was not concluded until August 23, 2006. The question presented to this court is, if no formal announcement of a continuation date is made, when is a § 341(a) creditors’ meeting concluded. This court has not previously ruled on this issue. The Debtor urges this court to apply a “bright-line” approach, holding that if a trustee does not announce a specific date to which the meeting is being continued within 30 days of the last meeting held, the meeting will be deemed to have been concluded on the last date it was convened. Some courts have adopted this approach. See Smith v. Kennedy (In re Smith), 235 F.3d 472, 476 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); In re Levitt, 137 B.R. 881, 883

A: holding that it was immaterial to whether the senate had adjourned if it was a final adjournment or an interim adjournment and instead considering whether the adjournment prevents the president from returning the bill to the house in which it originated within the time allowed
B: holding that an indefinite adjournment of the  341a creditors meeting would nullify the thirtyday requirement in rule 4003b
C: holding an unsecured creditors postconfirmation suit against a secured creditor for fraudulent misrepresentation at a creditors meeting constituted a collateral attack on the confirmation order
D: holding that 20 of creditors knowing of consignment relationship does not satisfy general knowledge requirement notwithstanding that such creditors represented 63 of claims against debtor
B.