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.

Input: Consider Input: breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right to an equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or unsecured." 11 U.S.C. 101(5)(B). Thus, it is clear that, under some circumstances, injunctions can constitute claims which are dischargeable in bankruptcy. The court must determine whether this case presents such a circumstance. A number of courts have considered whether an injunction prohibiting future breaches of a noncompete agreement can constitute a claim under Section 101(5)(B), reaching conflicting results based on a variety of reasonings. See e.g., In re Oseen, 133 B.R. 527 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1991) (finding that the injunction did not constitute a claim); In re Udell, 18 F.3d 403 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); In re Ward, 194 B.R. 703 (Bankr.D.Mass.1996)
Holding statements: (A) holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim (B) holding an appeal of injunction moot where the injunction expired three months before the appellate court heard arguments in the case (C) holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction (D) holding federal injunction countermanding a state court injunction did not violate antiinjunction act (E) holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified

Output: (A)

Input: Consider Input: 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

Output: (A)

Input: Consider Input: "dismiss the charges in Perry County." This court has held that a "petition for postconviction relief attacking a judgment, regardless of the label placed on it by the petitioner, is considered pursuant to our postconviction rule, Criminal Procedure Rule 37." Bailey v. State, 312 Ark. 180, 182, 848 S.W.2d 391, 392 (1993) (per curiam) (citing Williams v. State, 291 Ark. 244, 724 S.W.2d 158 (1987)). However, Rule 37 is "applicable only to such persons who are in custody." Bohanan v. State, 336 Ark. 367, 370, 985 S.W.2d 708, 709 (1999) (emphasis added) (rejecting argument that a person on parole was "in custody" of the Department of Correction and holding that a petitioner must be incarcerated to be entitled to Rule 37 relief). Compare State v. Herred, 332 Ark. 241, 964 S.W.2d 391 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Here, at the time Wilmoth filed his petition
Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court had continuing jurisdiction over all subsequent custody orders once the trial court acquired jurisdiction (B) holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to grant rule 37 relief where petitioner herred was in custody at the time the court ruled on his motion (C) holding that a motion for rule 37 sanctions is dispositive (D) recognizing for the first time that the habeas court had the power to retain the petitioner in conditional custody before granting relief (E) holding that the district court and this court had subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants motion for modification of sentence based on amendment 706 even though the defendant filed the motion before march 3 2008 because the district court ruled on the motion after that date
Output: (B)