With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that Jartran, after the filing of the petition, requested that appellants continue work on ads for which the closing date had passed_ Thus, it was the pre-petition Jartran and not Jartran as debtor-in-possession that induced appellants to perform these services. To serve the policy of priority, inducement of the creditor’s performance by the debtor-in-possession is crucial to a claim for administrative priority....” In re Jartran, Inc., 732 F.2d at 587 (emphasis in original). Thus, the Court clearly rejected the proposition that the post-petition triggering of the liability incurred by the pre-petition debtor entity could elevate a pre-petition claim to a post-petition administrative priority claim. Id. at 587-88; accord, Amalgamated Ins. Fund v. McFarlin’s, Inc., 789 F.2d at 101 (<HOLDING>); In re Chateaugay Corp., 87 B.R. at 797-99.

A: holding that when a creditor on multiple debts applies an undesignated partial payment by the debtor to a debt on which the statute of limitations has not yet run the payment tolls the statute of limitations on that debt
B: holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan
C: holding that licensor was entitled to administrative expense priority claim where debtor remained in possession postpetition of real property under a license agreement
D: holding that a debt is not entitled to priority simply because the right to payment arises after the debtor in possession has begun managing the estate
D.