Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a plan to “modify the rights of holders of secured claims.” A hen is a property right, see Nobelman, 508 U.S. at 328-29, 113 S.Ct. at 2109-10, and the obvious implication of Nobelman — an implication made express in Justice Stevens’ concurrence — is that hen-stripping is permissible except in the case of home mortgages in Chapter 13, see id. at 332, 113 S.Ct. at 2111 (Stevens, J., concurring). Section 1227(c) also has a hen-stripping effect, vesting property in the debtor “free and clear of any claim or interest of any creditor provided for by the plan” unless the plan or the order confirming the plan specifies otherwise. 11 U.S.C. § 1227(c) (1994). The FSA was undoubtedly “provided for by the plan,” and a hen is a “claim or interest.” See Johnson, 501 U.S. at 84, 111 S.Ct. at 2154 ; 11 U.S.C. § 101(37) (1994) (defining “lien”
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a claim is not moot where there is a viable damages claim
B. holding that an embezzlement claim is not a personal injury tort claim
C. holding claim is cognizable
D. holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim
E. holding that an in rem hen is a claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.