Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Ark. v. Hill, 122 B.R. 539, 541 (ED.Ark.1990).” In re Merrick, 175 B.R. at 336-337. To determine whether a “proceeding” is subject to the automatic stay under section 362(a)(1), many courts have followed the analysis employed in the Third Circuit which is the following: “Whether a specific judicial proceeding falls within the scope of the automatic stay must be determined by looking at the proceeding “at its inception.” “That determination should not change depending on the particular stage of the litigation at which the filing of the petition in bankruptcy occurs.” Thus, the dispositive question is whether a proceeding was “originally brought against the debtor.” Maritime Elec. Co. v. United Jersey Bank, 959 F.2d 1194, 1204-1205 (3d Cir.1992) (citations o , 491 n. 2 (8th Cir,1993) ; Gecy v. Bank of Ozarks (In re Gecy), 510 B.R.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void
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 that the protections of the automatic stay apply only to actions against the debtor
D. 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
E. holding that a thirdparty action instigated by two debtors against a third party was not subject to the automatic stay
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.