With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". between allegedly different causes of action.” Tice v. American Airlines, Inc., 959 F.Supp. 928, 934 (N.D.Ill.1997). In the instant ease, plaintiffs’ complaint and the Plan both address claims arising out of Apex’s acquisition of Whitlock from WSR, fusing an identity of causes of action. Indeed, the factual allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint and debtor Apex’s complaint-an integral part of the bankruptcy proceedings-are nearly identical. Both center on WSR’s alleged misrepresentations that induced Apex to overpay for Whitlock and forced Apex into bankruptcy. At the core of both complaints, then, is WSR’s conduct in connection with the Whitlock sale. The fact that the Apex complaint includes some additional claims and theories of recovery is irrelevant. See Brzostowski, 49 F.3d at 339 (<HOLDING>). Because the factual allegations in the Apex

A: holding that res judicata is not applicable to a claim for relief that was unavailable in the earlier action
B: holding second action barred by res judicata because plaintiff asserted identical claims and jurisdictional grounds as the first action
C: holding that earlier suits different legal theory did not save the later action from the res judicata bar because the central factual issues are identical
D: holding that res judicata does not bar those claims that arose after the original pleading is filed in the earlier proceeding
C.