With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". prior litigation. See Response to Motion, dkt. no. 22, P-2 However, the Defendant contends that the issues decided by the state court are not identical to the issues concerning the nondischargeability claim because the April 4 Order did not establish the existence of an express trust. In support, the Defendant asserts, without any supporting authority, that a fiduciary relationship under § 523(a)(4) is limited to express and technical trusts. The Defendant is mistaken. The Seventh Circuit has made clear that a fiduciary duty for purposes of § 523(a)(4) also applies in circumstances which, “while not involving trusts in a formal sense, seemed to call for the imposition of the same high standard.” In re Marchiando, at 1115; see also In re McDade, 282 B.R. 650, 658 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2002) (<HOLDING>); In re Odeh, 431 B.R. 807, 816

A: holding that a statutorilyimposed fiduciary obligation created an express trust fiduciary relationship for purposes of  523a4
B: recognizing that fiduciary relationships may arise for nondischargeability purposes outside of express trusts
C: holding that certain fiduciary duty claims did not arise out of the underlying contractual provisions
D: holding that express warranty claims that could only arise out of fda approval are preempted
B.