With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by federal law. That Act does not in any way preclude adjudication by federal courts of claims merely because insurance companies are involved. We are here asked not to resolve any issues bearing on “the business of insurance,” such as the content or meaning of insurance policies, Wadsworth v. Whaland, 562 F.2d 70 (1st Cir. 1977), or the methods used by insurers to sell such policies, Dexter v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States, 527 F.2d 233 (2d Cir. 1975), but to answer the simple question of whether appellant has a valid claim for violation of an ERISA welfare benefit plan entitling him and other retirees to be recognized as creditors in the pending liquidation proceeding. See SEC v. National Securities, Inc., 393 U.S. 453, 89 S.Ct. 564, 21 L.Ed.2d 668 (1969) (<HOLDING>). Exercise of federal jurisdiction here does

A: holding that shareholders had failed to maintain their status as shareholders by selling their shares after they had filed their complaint and therefore had lost standing to maintain a derivative suit
B: holding that mccarranferguson act does not apply to arizona laws regulating relationship between insurance companies and their shareholders
C: holding that pole attachments act does not effect a per se taking because it does not require utility companies to provide space on their utility poles to cable companies
D: holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school
B.