With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Here, County does not purport to equitably subordinate any other claimant to the Taxable Notes under Classes A-l or B-l other than the Noteholders. Moreover, the Noteholders certainly did not agree to less favorable treatment under the Plan. Rather, they voted to confirm the Plan with the understanding that if allowed, their claim would be paid fully in accordance with the provisions for distribution under a Class A-l or B-l claim. Therefore, to allow subordinate treatment of the Claim would result in the disparate treatment of the Noteholders as compared to other allowed Class A-l or B-l claimants. This result is in conflict with Code § 1123(a)(4). See LTV Steel Co., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. (In re Chateaugay Corp.), 1993 WL 563068, at *4-5 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 1993) (<HOLDING>). County contends that the Noteholders cannot

A: holding that because creditors claim was unsecured after application of section 506a and because section 1325a5 does not apply to unsecured claims creditors lien could properly be avoided
B: holding an unsecured creditors postconfirmation suit against a secured creditor for fraudulent misrepresentation at a creditors meeting constituted a collateral attack on the confirmation order
C: holding that postconfirmation attempt to equitably subordinate claim of one general unsecured creditor in a class of general unsecured creditors was a violation of  1123a4
D: holding that unsecured creditor could not appeal decision determining priority among secured creditors because it would not affect the payment of his claims
C.