With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Proceeding. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on events that occurred prior to the Debtor’s bankruptcy — namely, Defendants’ failure to properly draft and enforce a Rule 11 agreement and Defendants negligently advising McVey to file a Chapter 11 petition for SBMC. Because Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on pre-petition events and the Exculpatory Provision only immunizes Defendants from post-petition acts or omissions, the Provision is ineffective to bar this Adversary Proceeding. Interpretation of the Exculpatory Provision cannot be broadened to limit the liability of Defendants for pre-petition acts or omissions. Texas law governing releases provides that the language within an exculpatory provision must be narrowly construed. Victoria Bank & Trust Co. v. Brady, 811 S.W.2d 931, 938 (Tex.1991) (<HOLDING>); Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d

A: holding that  1 narrowly construed did not exclude employment contract of television news reporter
B: holding that general categorical release clauses are narrowly construed
C: recognizing that due on sale clauses are enforceable in texas
D: holding that personal injury exception should be construed narrowly so as not to include torts without physical injury
B.