the question is whether appellants’ breach of contract claim is “a claim ... for damages arising from the purchase or sale of ... a security [of the debtor].” Id. Claimants concede that the securities that they purchased from Tele-group are common stock. Therefore, if their claims “arise from” the purchase of that stock, then under § 510(b) their claims would have the same priority as common stock, and would be subordinated to the claims of general unsecured creditors. The question of the scope of § 510(b) presents this Court with a matter of first impression. Those courts that have considered the issue appear divided on how broadly the phrase “arising from the purchase or sale of ... a security” should be construed. Compare, e.g., In re Amarex, Inc., 78 B.R. 605, 610 (W.D.Okla.1987) (<HOLDING>), with In re Nal Fin. Group, Inc., 237 B.R. 225
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 claims alleging that the debtor fraudulently induced the claimants to retain securities they had purchased from the debtor arise from the purchase or sale of those securities for purposes of  510b 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 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