With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". third parties. In re Farmland Indus., Inc., 378 B.R. 829 (8th Cir. BAP 2007). The BAP remanded the case to the bankruptcy court, instructing the court to dismiss GAF’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The defendants appealed the BAP’s decision, and this Court reversed. In re Farmland Indus., Inc., 567 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir.2009). We held that the bankruptcy court had subject-matter jurisdiction because GAF’s claims are “related to” the bankruptcy of Farmland under 28 U.S.C. § 157(e)(1). Id. at 1020. We thus remanded the case to the BAP for a ruling on whether the bankruptcy court properly dismissed GAF’s complaint. Id. at 1021. On remand, the BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of GAF’s complaint. In re Farmland Indus., Inc., 408 B.R. 497 (8th Cir. BAP 2009) (<HOLDING>). II. In an appeal from a decision of the BAP,

A: holding that gaf lacked standing to sue and that gafs complaint failed to state a claim was barred by collateral estoppel and was precluded by 11 usc  363m
B: holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
C: holding that employers have standing to sue
D: holding that a union lacked standing to sue for injuries passed on to it by intermediaries
A.