With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". moots Weinstein’s substantive claims. IV The Weinstein firm received adequate notice of the financing agreement and its substantive objections to the agreement are moot. AFFIRMED. 1 . Two of our sister circuits have adopted our approach. See In re Ellingsen MacLean Oil Co., Inc., 834 F.2d 599, 600-01 (6th Cir.1987) (where a bank extended post-petition financing in return for the waiver of any right to challenge its pre-petition liens, extending the protection of § 364(e) to both the post-petition debt and the waiver); In re Reveo D.S., Inc., 901 F.2d 1359, 1364 (6th Cir.1990) (explaining that in "reviewing financing orders subject to section 364(e) [courts] have been reluctant to sever individual provisions”); In re Western Pacific Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 1191, 1195 (10th Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>). But see Matter of Saybrook Mfg. Co., Inc.,

A: holding that   364e prohibits not only outright invalidation of a lien or priority  but also modification of the terms
B: holding that a mortgage took priority over a judgment lien under real prop  3201 where the mortgage had been executed before but recorded after the institution of a lawsuit to obtain the judgment lien
C: holding that a judgment resolving the question of the priority of the federal tax lien   constitutes a final and appealable order over which we have jurisdiction
D: holding that a property right that comes into existence by court action such as a judgment lien does not relate back to some earlier date to destroy the priority of a federal tax lien
A.