With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a motion to disqualify an arbitrator). 38 . See, e.g., 2/18/11 NNIC's Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Petition to Appoint an Arbitrator, No. 11 Civ. 1124, Dkt. No. 4, at 4-5. 39 . This Court has previously relied on diversity jurisdiction to consider a motion to disqualify counsel in an arbitration. See Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau v. Munich Reinsurance Am., Inc., No. 10 Civ. 3558, 2011 WL 1873123, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2011). 40 . Def. Mem. at 10. 41 . See 8/2/11 Pre-Motion Conference at 4:16-18 (noting that "it may [be that] the facts are sui generis. It may be there is no reported case about an attorney having access to the communications among the arbitration panel.”). 42 . See Munich Reinsurance Am., Inc. v. ACE Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 500 F.Supp.2d 272, 275-76 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (<HOLDING>); Yardis Corp. v. Levine, No. 89 Civ. 8794,

A: holding that a court reviewing an arbitrators award in an act 111 grievance arbitration involves questions regarding 1 the jurisdiction of the arbitrator 2 the regularity of the proceedings 3 an excess of the arbitrators powers and 4 deprivation of constitutional rights
B: recognizing commonwealth court authority supporting proposition that arbitrators exceeded their jurisdiction when they considered issues which were not properly presented in the demand for arbitration
C: holding that the court rather than arbitrators determines issues of attorney disqualification in arbitration
D: holding that the economic substance of a transaction rather than its form determines its tax treatment
C.