With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Chicago, Inc., 19 F.3d 1503, 1510 (3d Cir. 1994), the Third Circuit held that “where a party objects to arbitrability but nevertheless voluntarily participates in the arbitration proceedings, waiver of the challenge to arbitral jurisdiction will not be inferred.” In that case, after the arbitrator rejected the plaintiffs’ objection to arbitration, they participated in the .arbitration on the merits and lost. In affirming, the United States Supreme Court concluded that since the plaintiffs had “forcefully objected] to the arbitrators deciding their dispute,” they had not clearly agreed to submit the issue of arbitrability to arbitration. First Options, 514 U.S. at 946, 115 S.Ct. 1920; see also China Minmetals Materials Imp. & Exp. Co. v. Chi Mei Corp., 334 F.3d 274, 291-92 (3d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Eleanor L. Grossman, Annotation,

A: holding that appellants were bound by arbitrators ruling because they voluntarily and without objection participated in arbitration by inter alia arguing their case before an arbitrator
B: holding that the court rather than arbitrators determines issues of attorney disqualification in arbitration
C: holding that although party participated in arbitration even presenting argument on merits it had not waived its objection to arbitrators jurisdiction because it consistently objected to arbitrators jurisdiction throughout proceedings
D: holding that the arbitrators decision had res judicata effect even when the arbitrators failed to make detailed supporting findings when the decision firmly stated that it represented a full and final settlement of the matter as a whole
C.