With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Consolidated Appeals moot. A plain reading and specific application of § 1127(b) indicate that it has no relevancy either to the Consolidated or to the Confirmation Appeals, each of which was brought by a creditor and challenger of the Plan. It seems to be true that § 1127(b) of the Bankruptcy Code—which provides that the debtor or proponent of a confirmed reorganization plan may modify the plan before it has been substantially consummated—is “the sole means for modification of the plan of reorganization after it has been confirmed.” 7 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1127.04 (15th ed. rev. 2009). It can also operate to prohibit other actions in the bankruptcy court that are essentially attempted modifications to a confirmed plan. See In re U.S. Brass Corp. 301 F.3d 296, 306-08 (5th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). However, § 1127(b) does not apply to

A: holding client suffered ascertainable damages when settlement agreement was entered into not when court confirmed the rights were lost
B: holding that trial court is without authority to modify a settlement agreement but may enforce and interpret it
C: holding that a proposed settlement agreement between the debtor and its claimants would modify the confirmed plan and was prohibited by  1127b
D: holding that the debtor had the right to cure the default because the foreclosure sale was not complete under state law until it was confirmed by a court
C.