With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". rise to liability under § 10(b) or Rule 10b-5, even if the alleged conduct also gives rise to a state-law cause of action. Dabit, 547 U.S. at 84-86, 126 S.Ct. 1503. However, a claim is not automatically SLUSA-barred merely because it involves securities. See SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813, 820, 122 S.Ct. 1899, 153 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (admonishing courts not to interpret § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 “so broadly as to convert every common-law fraud that happens to involve securities into a violation of § 10(b)”). A party who enters into an agreement involving securities intending from the outset to breach it has violated § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 in addition to breaching a contract. See Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. v. United Int’l Holdings, Inc., 532 U.S. 588, 589-90, 121 S.Ct. 1776, 149 L.Ed.2d 845 (2001) (<HOLDING>). But, if the contract dispute simply concerns

A: holding that there is no duty to override a plans mandate that company stock be offered as an investment option
B: holding that a company that sold an option to buy stock while secretly intending never to honor the option violates  10b and rule 10b5
C: holding that even if the doctrine applies to option contracts no conversion would take place until the option were exercised by the party having the right of election
D: holding that an option to purchase stock is property under section 1129b2bii
B.