With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the fraudulent transfer claims were not subject to arbitration. Allegaert, 548 F.2d at 435-36. The fraudulent transfer claims were exempted from arbitration because they are “statutory causes of action belonging to the trustee, not to the bankrupt, and the trustee asserts them for the benefit of the bankrupt’s creditors, whose rights the trustee enforces.” Id. at 436. Allegaert speaks directly to fraudulent transfer claims that may be brought by a trustee, concluding that claims are not arbitrable has also been undermined. The Supreme Court and the Second Circuit have clearly expanded the range of claims that are subject to arbitration since Allegaert was decided. See Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 104 L.Ed.2d 526 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler

A: holding wilko inapplicable to the securities exchange act of 1934 and stating in wilko the court held that a predispute agreement could not be enforced to compel arbitration of a claim arising under  122 of the securities act 15 u s c  772 emphasis supplied
B: holding that a predispute agreement to arbitrate securities act of 1933 claims was enforceable
C: holding that claims under the securities act of 1933 are arbitrable
D: holding that claims under the securities act of 1933 were arbitrable under a predispute arbitration agreement
B.