With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". see Opposition, Exhibits A and C, of recognizing that the client relationship is owned by the financial advisor, not the firm. Courts and FINRA arbitration panels have also recognized that restrictions on a financial consultant’s ability to solicit former clients is contrary to the public interest. See, e.g., Smith Barney v. Burrow, 558 F.Supp.2d 1066, 1083-84 (E.D.Cal.2008) (“[T]he public interest is better served with open competition in the securities field and access to advisors of clients’ choice. The balance of equities and public interest factors weigh in defendants’ favor,” warranting denial of a preliminary injunction to enjoin solicitation by defendant financial consultants of clients from a former employer); Wachovia Securities v. Gates, 2008 WL 1803612, *3 (E.D.Va.2008) (<HOLDING>); A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. Stifel, Nicolaus

A: holding that a choice of law provision in a lease did not serve as a basis for jurisdiction
B: holding that customers who were not parties to the nonsolicitation agreement should be free to maintain their relationship with departing account representatives because restricting customer choice would not serve the public interest
C: holding that language in a merrill lynch customer account agreement that the plaintiff signed upon opening the first account  providing for arbitration of any controversy  arising out of its business  applied to the disputed second account even though the plaintiff did not sign a separate customer account agreement for the second account
D: holding a bank officer who informed a third party that it would be safe to extend 8000 credit to bank customer although customer did not have an open account at the bank could be held liable for the material misrepresentation
B.