With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". between a counterclaim and a proof claim is irrelevant for establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction over the counterclaim. The relationship between the claim and counterclaim — and specifically, whether both will necessarily be resolved as part of the claims allowance process — is determinative only of whether a bankruptcy court may finally adjudicate the counterclaim in question. See Stern v. Marshall, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 2620, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011). Thus, this proceeding is statutorily core as a “counterclaim[ ] by the estate against persons filing claims against the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C). It follows, therefore, that the Court has jurisdiction over the proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) as one “arising in” a title 11 case. See Stern, 131 S.Ct. at 2604 (<HOLDING>). Further, any proceeding that arises under the

A: recognizing wide reach of jurisdiction under title 11
B: holding that a proceeding that by its nature could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case is a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court
C: holding that all core proceedings necessarily arise under title 11 or arise in a title 11 case
D: holding that  656b serves as an independent basis to make all such debts nondischargeable under title 11
C.