With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". law in this Commonwealth, we also note that courts in other jurisdictions have arrived at similar resolutions when faced with factually similar disputes. See Patten Securities Corp., Inc. v. Diamond Greyhound & Genetics, Inc., 819 F.2d 400, 407, n. 3 (3d Cir.1987), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Delgrosso v. Spang and Co., 903 F.2d 234, 236 n. 2 (3d Cir.1990) (concluding in an application of federal law, that an arbitration clause and a forum selection/consent to jurisdiction clause could both be given effect, because arbitration awards are not self-enforceable and thus the forum selection/consent to jurisdiction clause would appear to dictate the location of any action to enforce the award); Bank Julius Baer & Co., LTD. v. Waxfield LTD., 424 F.3d 278, 284-85 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Security Life Insurance Company of America v.

A: holding that court should consider issues relating to making and performance of agreement to arbitrate
B: holding in a case factually similar to patten securities that a forum selectionconsent to jurisdiction clause should be understood as complementary to an agreement to arbitrate
C: holding in motion to compel arbitration that personal jurisdiction is not created merely by a partys agreement to arbitrate in a particular forum
D: holding that a predispute agreement to arbitrate securities act of 1933 claims was enforceable
B.