Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
plaintiff nor the' defendants have questioned the Court’s authority here. The Court is issuing legal conclusions on a motion to dismiss; issues of fact are not considered. A review of the Court’s conclusions would thus be de novo. See Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2165, 2175, 189 L.Ed.2d 83 (2014). In the event a superi- or court determines that some or all of the causes of action here are not constitutionally core proceedings or not properly subject of this Court’s authority, the conclusions here are submitted as proposed conclusions. See Stern v. Marshall, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011) (addressing constitutional authority of bankruptcy court); Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2165, 189 L.Ed.2d 83 (2014) ; and Galaz v. Galaz (In re Galaz), 765 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a proceeding that by its nature could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case is a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court
B. holding that stem does not change bankruptcy courts authority to decide fundamental core procedures of bankruptcy court
C. holding that the bankruptcy court has constitutional and implied statutory authority to conduct jury trials in core proceedings
D. holding that bankruptcy court may issue proposed findings and conclusions in a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court does not have constitutional authority
E. holding district court may treat bankruptcy courts findings and conclusions as proposed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.