With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". payments and obtained a discharge. A student loan creditor thereafter initiated collection proceedings against the debtor. The debtor reopened her bankruptcy case and filed a complaint to determine the dischargeability of the debt. The bankruptcy court held that the debtor’s student loan obligations were not discharged under the confirmed plan. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed, concluding that confirmation of the chapter 13 plan bound the creditor to the plan’s treatment of the student loan obligation under the theory of res judicata. See Andersen v. Higher Education Assistance Foundation (In re Andersen), 215 B.R. 792 (10th Cir. BAP 1998). The Tenth Circuit affirmed. See Andersen, 179 F.3d at 1260; see also In re Pardee, 193 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The Debtor’s reliance upon Andersen is

A: holding that provision in chapter 13 plan discharging postpetition interest on a student loan is binding on creditor under theory of res judicata where objection was not raised prior to plan confirmation and confirmation order was not appealed
B: holding that an order confirming a chapter 13 plan is res judicata as to all justiciable issues which were or could have been decided at the confirmation hearing
C: holding that confirmation of a chapter 11 plan creates a binding contract which may be enforced in state courts
D: holding that creditor with notice of bankruptcy could have objected to confirmation of chapter 13 plan in order contest treatment of claim
A.