With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Walker, Inc., 878 F.2d 729, Fed.Sec.L.Rep. (CCH) 1f 94,449 (3d Cir. June 29, 1989), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected the notice argument advanced by defendants here. Holding the exclusionary language binding, despite the rescission of Rule 15c2-2, the Court noted that the language was “unequivocal” and a customer reading the language “could not be expected to be aware of the regulatory background or to understand that the language may become meaningless with the winds of change in the law.” Concluding that the securities claims were not arbitrable, the Court pointed out that defendant could not be relieved from the agreement simply by arguing that it did not mean what it said. Accord Leicht v. Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc., 848 F.2d 130, 133 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). A similar conclusion was reached in Brick v.

A: holding exclusionary language in an arbitration agreement binding despite the rescission of rule 15c22
B: recognizing that the broad language in herring signals a dramatic restriction in the application of the exclusionary rule and represents a significant recasting of modern exclusionary rule theory
C: holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties
D: holding that the federal arbitration act requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement and mandates enforcement of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement emphasis added
A.