statute is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case.”). The inquiry “must cease if the statutory language is unambiguous and the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Claimants argue that their claims do not arise from the purchase or sale of Tele-group’s common stock because a claim “aris[es] from the purchase or sale of ... a security” only if the claim alleges that the purchase or sale of the security was itself unlawful. According to claimants, a claim does not arise from the purchase or sale of a security if it is predicated on conduct that occurred after the purchase or sale. See In re Amarex, Inc., 78 B.R. 605, 610 (W.D.Okla.1987) (<HOLDING>); In re Angeles Corp., 177 B.R. 920, 926
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 a partnership agreement that contained prohibitions against the sale or assignment of a partners interest in the partnership without the others consent would be enforced 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 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