With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". First Essex financing in 2002 caused additional interest to accrue on the March Note. Moreover, Mallegni’s refusal to extend the December Note absent the release of its attorney from a substantial lease obligation that 219 Forest had no authority over resulted in assessment of over $376,757.91 in default interest. See infra Section II. E. 2. An untold, but nonetheless staggering, amount of additional interest has since accrued on that figure. Finally, LBM’s refusal to provide 219 Forest with payoff figures in 2005 ensured that default interest, at a rate of 41%, would continue to accrue on the March and December Notes. In short, LBM’s inequitable conduct drastically amplified its claims leaving nothing for 219 Forest’s unsecured creditors. Cf. In re 604 Columbus, 968 F.2d at 1337-39 (<HOLDING>). Consequently, the Court concludes that

A: holding that the lenders excess withdrawal of soft costs warranted the equitable subordination of the lenders claim because the depletion of the funds available for construction and its attendant impact on the trusts renovation efforts was a sufficiently concrete harm to the trusts other creditors 
B: holding that a bank had no duty to inform other lenders of its borrowers financial problems even though those other lenders funds were used to pay off the borrowers debt to the bank
C: holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury
D: holding that a construction lender may voluntarily assume a duty to inspect the construction project for the borrowers benefit in addition to the lenders independent contractual right to inspect the project for its own exclusive benefit
A.