common stock. The Bankruptcy Court filed a written opinion and order subordinating appellants’ claims, holding that because appellants’ claims would not exist but for their purchase of Telegroup’s stock, the claims arise from that purchase for purposes of § 510(b). The District Court affirmed, and claimants filed this appeal. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). Because the District Court sat below as an appellate court, this Court conducts the same review of the Bankruptcy Court’s order as did the District Court. See In re O’Brien Envtl ith the text of the statute. See Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997) (“[The] first step in interpreting .D.Cal.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also In re Montgomery Ward Holding Corp.,
holding that a claim arises from the purchase or sale of a security only if there is an allegation of fraud in the purchase sale or issuance of the  instrument holding that under  510b a claim does not arise from the purchase or sale of a security if it is predicated on conduct that occurred after the securitys issuance holding that claims for breach of fiduciary duty do not arise from the purchase or sale of limited partnership interests where the wrongful conduct occurred after the sale of those interests holding that a claim for breach of a partnership agreement because it is based on conduct that occurred after the issuance and sale of the partnership units does not arise from the purchase or sale of those units holding that plaims for breach of a merger agreement arise from the purchase or sale of debtors securities