In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

policy, (DE 50, pg. 35), count 6 of the amended complaint is a claim for rescission of the life insurance policies based on “the brokers” fraudulent actions allegedly committed in violation of the brokerage agreements. (DE 50, pg. 33-34). This Court therefore RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT the Mo tion to Compel Arbitration as to Defendants Richardson and LBEG. See Provident Bank, 141 F.Supp.2d at 313-314 (granting motion to compel arbitration of claims including fraud, breach of fiduciary-duty, negligence, and rescission where arbitration clause provided that all disputes ‘arising out of the agreement were to be settled by arbitration, and because all the claims arose out of alleged breaches of duty imposed by the parties’ loan agreement); Sease, 697 F.Supp. at 1192-1193 (<HOLDING>) (citing Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc., 671 F.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that claims of breach of fiduciary duty negligence and fraud were subject to arbitration in light of broad arbitration clause which called for arbitration of any controversy  arising out of or relating to this agreement breach thereof or any aecounts   (B) holding that trial court properly denied motion to compel arbitration of claims for fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practices because arbitration clause in agreement only applied to indemnification claims and there were no other arbitration clauses in agreement (C) holding that a clause covering any controversy or claim  related directly or indirectly to this agreement was a broad arbitration clause (D) holding that a clause requiring arbitration of any controversy or claim that shall arise out of this agreement or the breach thereof was sufficiently broad to cover a 1934 securities act claim involving fraudulent misrepresentation (E) holding that the language of the arbitration clause   any controversy or claim arising out of     was broad enough to encompass the plaintiffs claim alleging fraud in the inducement of the contract
(A)

designs. Moreover, we also note that the similarity of the products need not be identical, as Exmark seems to argue, because the similarity may be defined in terms of the defect and any differences among the products may merely go to the weight of the evidence and not its discoverability or admissibility. See Jackson v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 788 F.2d 1070, 1082-88 (5th Cir.1986); see also Uniroyal Goodrich Tire, 977 S.W.2d at 341; Davidson Oil Country Supply, Inc. v. Klockner, Inc., 908 F.2d 1238, 1245 (5th Cir.1990). We note that many other decisions from courts around the nation reject the notion that discovery in a strict product liability case is uniformly limited to the specific product at issue. See, e.g., In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1191 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Brownlow v. General Motors Corp., No. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs work environment was not affected by comments and conduct of which she was not aware (B) recognizing trial courts decision on discovery issues implies a finding that requested discovery was not reasonably available (C) holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law (D) holding that plaintiffs allegation that defendant had exclusive knowledge as the manufacturer did not support claim that defendant was aware of a defect (E) holding that discovery on other tires was not overbroad where plaintiffs alleged that defendant was aware of tread separation problem
(E)

relief which transgresses the control over PRSI property which is now properly vested in the Florida state court. Count V refers to “equitable subordination,” which is a cause of action recognized in bankruptcy cases under section 510(c). If a claim of a creditor is equitably subordinated, then the claim, although allowed, is reduced in priority and is paid only after other allowed claims'— typically, the claims of general, unsecured creditors — are repaid in full. See In re Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp., 277 B.R. 520, 563 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2002). As the disallowance of a claim submitted by a receiver to a bankruptcy court would not violate federal common law, the reduction in its priority is also within my jurisdiction. Cf. In re Continental Financial Resources, Inc., 149 B.R. at 260 (<HOLDING>). In Count V, however, the trustee actually 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the words allowed secured claim in  506d refer to a claim that is secured by a lien and allowed under  502 (B) holding that a bank receiver by filing a claim permits challenge to the secured portion of its claim (C) holding that if  506 does not apply to an allowed claim such claim cannot become a secured claim (D) recognizing claim against bank receiver (E) holding that the secured creditor was only entitled to the amount of its claim as provided in the debtors chapter 13 plan when the destruction of the vehicle yielded insurance proceeds greater than the secured creditors claim

(B)