With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the NYSE and its officers conspired to violate the federal securities laws and various rules promulgated by the NYSE and failed to perform its statutory duty, created under federal law, to enforce its members’ compliance with those laws. See, e. g., Sable v. Gen. Motors Corp., 90 F.3d 171, 174-75 (6th Cir.1996) (“arising under” jurisdiction existed where plaintiffs state law tort claim was premised on defendants’ breach of a duty created under federal law). Thus, resolution of D’Alessio’s claims requires a court to construe federal securities laws and evaluate the scope of the NYSE’s duties, as defined under the Exchange Act and the regulations and rules thereto, in enforcing and monitoring a member’s compliance with those laws. See, e. g., Sparta Surgical Corp., 159 F.3d at 1211 (<HOLDING>); Marcus, 138 F.3d at 55-56 (federal

A: holding that erisa preempts claims for breach of contract breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and negligent misrepresentations
B: holding that breach of good faith and fair dealing claim requires showing of breach of contract
C: recognizing that evidence of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may support punitive damages
D: holding in an action where plaintiff alleged state commonlaw claims for inter alia breach of express and implied contract breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing gross negligence intentional misrepresentation negligent misrepresentation and interference with economic relations that beeause the complaint sought relief based upon violation of exchange rules subject matter jurisdiction was specifically vested in the federal district court under the exchange act
D.