With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (b). Plaintiff argues also that, “following the termination of ‘continuation [group health] coverage,’ [he] exercised his right to contract directly with the insurance company ... for a conversion policy____” (PL’s Br.Regard. ERISA at 4.) Like continuation coverage, the right to a COBRA conversion option is predicated upon the existence of an ERISA plan. Howard v. Gleason Corp., 901 F.2d 1154, 1157 (2d Cir.1990); see 29 U.S.C. § 1162(5). COBRA defines what conversion options must be offered by reference to the ERISA plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1162(5). Any claim that Defendant failed to offer proper conversion plan options is essentially a claim that Defendant violated Plaintiffs conversion rights; such a claim relates to the ERISA plan and is pre-empted by ERISA. Cf. Howard, 901 F.2d at 1156-59 (<HOLDING>). (e). This Court draws a distinction, however,

A: holding claim based on failure to disclose information to the epa preempted
B: holding statelaw claim based on alleged failure to give proper notice of right to convert is preempted by erisa
C: holding that statelaw fraudonthefda claim  was preempted by federal law based on uniquely federal nature of regulated relationship
D: holding that a wrongful discharge claim based on violation of a state public policy is not preempted because it is a nonnegotiable independent statelaw right
B.