With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". regulations by asserting that the contract contained implied affirmative duties that would impact lending operations, which a state statute or regulation could not directly accomplish pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 560.2. Instead, plaintiffs allege breach of specific, explicit contractual obligations that prohibited collection of the Disputed Fees. As a straightforward breach of contract claim, it is not preempted under HOLA and its implementing regulations. See, e.g., Baldanzi v. WFC Holdings Corp., No. 07-CV-9551 (LTS), 2008 WL 4924987, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2008) (finding breach of contract claim not preempted by HOLA where claim only sought to “enforce the terms of contracts into which Defendant entered”); see also Mincey v. World Savings Bank, FSB, 614 F.Supp.2d 610, 646 (D.S.C.2008) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court concludes that

A: holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach
B: holding breach of contract claim not preempted as a straightforward breach of contract action as it alleged violation of specific covenant
C: holding breach of contract claim not preempted under hola
D: recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract
B.