With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (Reply at ¶ 10.) As the Foreign Representative makes clear, although certain Class III (Unsecured) members may be treated differently under the Brazilian Reorganization Plan, such disparate treatment is justified where, as here, a government regulator charged with protecting the resources in its country has required different treatment of a creditor involved in reorganization proceedings. Indeed, different treatment of groups of unsecured creditors is not uncommon under chapter 11. The question before this Court is only whether such treatment of similarly situated claims is wholly at odds with U.S. public policy. The Court finds that it is not. See, e.g., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Charter Commc’ns Operating, LLC (In re Charter Commc’ns Corp.), 419 B.R. 221, 267 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2009) (<HOLDING>); In re Adelphia Commc’ns, 368 B.R. 140, 246-47

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 that plan did not unfairly discriminate against unsecured noteholder class receiving 327 percent recovery while awarding general unsecured creditors a 100 percent recovery because differing treatment was justified
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 plan proposing and payment of nondischargeable student loan in full outside plan according to its terms for 54 months and 79 payment to unsecured creditors over 36 months did not discriminate unfairly among unsecured class
B.