Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
stay is among the most basic of debtor protections under bankruptcy law.” Id. at 975; see also In re Steenstra, 280 B.R. 560, 566 (Bankr.D.Mass.2002). In re Weber, 283 B.R. 630, 633 (Bankr.D.Mass.2002). Section 362(a)(1) specifically bars “the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under [the Code] ....” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) (emphasis supplied). The statute is clear. The stay applies only to the debtor and not to co-defendants. Austin v. Unarco Industries, Inc., 705 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983) , cert. dismissed, 463 U.S. 1247, 104 S.Ct. 34,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the automatic stay did not bar the filing of a proof of claim where the debtor actively litigated a separate action during the pending bankruptcy proceeding because to permit the automatic stay provision to be used as a trump card played after an unfavorable result was reached  would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the automatic stay
B. holding that although the automatic stay only applies to proceedings against the debtor  counterclaims seeking affirmative relief against a debtor implicate the automatic stay
C. holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void
D. holding that the automatic stay applies to the debt ors appeal of an order entered in action brought against the debtor in the lower court
E. holding that the protections of the automatic stay apply only to actions against the debtor
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.