With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. Both RICO and the antitrust laws authorize treble damages. The Seventh Circuit has held that “a treble damage anti trust suit is most appropriately characterized as an action for a penalty,” and has likewise held that “[bjecause a civil RICO claim is best characterized as an action for treble damages, ... such an action is penal in nature.” Tellis v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 805 F.2d 741, 746 (7th Cir.1986), vacated Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 483 U.S. 143, 107 S.Ct. 2759, 97 L.Ed.2d 121 (1987). However, the Seventh Circuit has addressed the nature of treble damages in antitrust and RICO actions for the narrow purpose of electing the state statute of limitations to apply to such actions. See, e.g., id. (<HOLDING>); Schiffman Bros. v. Texas Co., 196 F.2d 695,

A: holding that because civil rico is penal in nature illinois twoyear statute of limitations for actions based on a statutory penalty applies to civil rico claims
B: holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over rico claims and that plaintiffs federal rico claim was barred by res judicata since he failed to bring his rico claim along with his state fraud claims in prior state court action
C: holding that duress toll to statute of limitations under state law had no application to federal rico statute of limitations
D: holding that a twoyear statute of limitations applies to negligence claims under texas law
A.