With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to assess the legitimacy of the American Safety doctrine as applied to agreements to arbitrate arising from domestic transactions” it “confessed] to some skepticism of certain aspects of the American Safety doctrine.” 473 U.S. at 629, 632, 105 S.Ct. at 3355, 3356. Although the holding of Mitsubishi was limited to international transactions, the Supreme Court nonetheless rejected the concerns that had been used to justify the non-arbitrability of antitrust claims. Id. at 632-40, 105 S.Ct. at 3356-60. The principles and reasoning set forth in Mitsubishi have been used by the Court in later cases to find that RICO and securities claims are arbitrable in the domestic context. See Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 104 L.Ed.2d 526 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon,

A: holding that claims under the securities act of 1934 and the rico statutes are arbitrable
B: holding that a predispute agreement to arbitrate securities act of 1933 claims was enforceable
C: holding that claims brought under section 10b of the securities exchange act and rico claims were arbitrable
D: holding that claims under the securities act of 1933 are arbitrable
D.