With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the action between the two non-debtors would have no impact on the efficient administration of the bankruptcy proceeding, especially because the defendant’s indemnification claim against the debtor had already been fully liquidated. Id.; see also Residential Capital, 488 B.R. at 577 (recommending that the district court abstain from hearing a case between two non-debtors where the defendant had filed an indemnification claim against the bank ruptcy estate). Here, any judgment in favor of RFC in this action will result in an affirmative recovery for the RFC bankruptcy estate, which is being administered by the Trust. The potential benefit to RFC’s creditors alone is sufficient to find an effect on the efficient administration of the estate. See, e.g., Refco, 628 F.Supp.2d at 446 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, this particular RMBS Action was

A: holding pursuant to bankruptcy rule 7004b9 that because the creditor mailed the complaint and summons to the debtors attorney and to the address listed in the debtors bankruptcy petition service of process was sufficient even if the debtors were out of the country and did not actually receive notice of the complaint and summons
B: holding that related to jurisdiction did not reach proceeding the outcome which would have no impact on the estates handling or administration since the debtor had a confirmed liquidation plan stating when we confirmed the debtors liquidation plan the estate ceased to exist and the parties became bound to the plans provisions
C: holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan
D: holding that discretionary abstention was not warranted where the action shared a close relationship with the  bankruptcy proceeding as the claims being prosecuted by the trustee were the very causes of action that were assigned to it by the  debtors pursuant to the confirmed plan
D.