With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court concludes that awarding preclusive effect to an arbitration award which, “in full and final resolution of the issue submitted for determination,” rejected unfair competition and antitrust claims does not undermine the purposes of the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Sherman or Clayton Acts, particularly in view of recent Supreme Court decisions which reflect increased recognition of the federal policy favoring arbitration and a retreat from the American Safety doctrine. See Cullen v. Paine Webber Group, 689 F.Supp. at 277 (decision of arbitration panel addressing the predicate acts underlying RICO claims may be given preclusive effect, providing the elements necessary for preclusion are satisfied); see also Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co., 815 F.2d 840, 855 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Gemco Latinoamerica, Inc. v. Seiko Time

A: holding that claims under the securities act of 1933 are arbitrable
B: holding that title vii and nyhrl claims are arbitrable
C: holding that unfair competition claims are arbitrable
D: holding that the nonarbitrable fraud claims had to be stayed pending resolution of the arbitrable issue because the fraud claims depended upon the arbitrable issues
C.