With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that subordinating appellants’ claims advances the policies underlying § 510(b) by preventing disappointed equity investors from recovering a portion of their investment in parity with bona fide creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding. We agree with Telegroup, and hold that a claim for breach of a provision in a stock purchase agreement requiring the issuer to use its best efforts to register its stock and ensure that .the stock is freely tradea-ble “arises from” the purchase of the stock for purposes of § 510(b), and therefore must be subordinated. Accordingly, we will affirm. I. The relevant facts are undisputed, and can be succinctly summarized. Appellant LeHeron Corporation, Ltd. sold to Tele-group the assets of certain businesses that it owned in exchange fo -34 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1997) (<HOLDING>); see also In re Lenco, Inc., 116 B.R. 141

A: holding that claims for erisa violations arose from the purchase or sale of debtors securities
B: holding that claims for breach of debtors agreement to use its best efforts to register its securities arise from the purchase of those securities for purposes of  510b
C: holding that plaims for breach of a merger agreement arise from the purchase or sale of debtors securities
D: holding that claims that debtor fraudulently induced claimants to retain debtors securities arise from the purchase or sale of those securities
D.