With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". distribution to general unsecured creditors, provided it submitted a claim and such claim was ultimately allowed. However, Nevada State Bank has not filed a proof of claim in this proceeding, and the bar date for filing claims has passed. Therefore, in this case, Nevada State Bank does not have an allowed claim, Fed. R. Bankr.P. 3002(a); 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), and is not entitled to share in any pro-rata distribution made to unsecured creditors. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 3021. 9 . Other courts considering this issue have concluded that a debtor may not employ 506(d) to avoid the lien, as this would constitute an end-run around the Supreme Court’s holding in Dewsnup. Gerardin, (finding lien modification under Section 506(d) improper if claim it secures is a secured claim); Hill, 440 B.R. at 181 (<HOLDING>); This court agrees that 506(d) may not be used

A: holding that permitting lien avoidance in these circumstances would defraud judicial lienholders
B: holding that allowing lien avoidance solely under section 506d would run afoul of dewsnup 
C: holding that section 506d does not permit the strip down of a partially secured lien
D: holding that the words allowed secured claim in  506d refer to a claim that is secured by a lien and allowed under  502
B.