With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". R. 347; see also Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 234, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 2341, 96 L.Ed.2d 185 (1987) (concluding SEC has specifically approved arbitration procedures of NASD and NYSE). Ottman agrees he signed the U-4 registration agreement, but argues his defamation claim does not involve significant aspects of the employment relationship and is only tenuously linked to his employment. See Ateas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of Am., 292 Minn. 334, 340-50, 197 N.W.2d 448, 452-57 (1972) (concluding no agreement to arbi trate exists because controversy not within scope of arbitration clause). We are asked to determine whether Ottman’s defamation claim, as described in his complaint, falls within the scope of the U-4 registration agreement. See Morgan, 729 F.2d at 1167 (<HOLDING>); Johnson, 530 N.W.2d at 795 (concluding

A: holding because legislature knew how to include terms within statutory definition and did not do so statutory definition did not include terms in light of the terms contemporaneous inclusion of the same terms in a separate provision
B: recognizing that the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true on a threshold motion to dismiss
C: holding complaint allegations must be examined in light of parties contractual terms
D: holding that arbitration clauses as contractual agreements must be enforced to their terms
C.