With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “[t]he Arbitration Act establishes that, as a matter of federal law, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration ... [and opining that] as with any other contract, the parties’ intentions control, but those intentions are generously construed as to issues of arbitrability”) (citations omitted). Neither of the FDIC’s other arguments undermines this conclusion. First, the court is unpersuaded by the FDIC’s claim that a broad interpretation of the arbitration clause would render the forum selection clause superfluous. As TACG points out, the forum selection clause could apply to suits to compel arbitration or enforce an arbitration award. See Kvaerner ASA v. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd., N.Y. Branch, 210 F.3d 262, 267 (4th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Thus, a broad construction of the arbitration

A: holding that a contracts clause violation may support a  1983 claim
B: holding that there was no conflict between a contracts arbitration clause and its venue clause
C: holding that a contracts choiceoflaw provision did not determine the scope of an arbitration clause
D: holding that the best way to harmonize a choice of law clause and an arbitration clause is to apply the substantive case law of the named state to the entire agreement including the arbitration clause
B.