With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was procedurally unconscionable, which, combined with a waiver of class action remedies, renders the contracts unenforceable. While plaintiffs seem to assert that the collusion is an antitrust violation (Tr. at 33-34), no such allegation is advanced in the Complaint. Kelly v. Kosuga, holding that an antitrust violation is severable from an “intelligible economic transaction in itself,” is dis-positive. 358 U.S. 516, 521, 79 S.Ct. 429, 3 L.Ed.2d 475 (1959); see also Viacom Int’l Inc. v. Tandem Prods., Inc., 526 F.2d 593 (2d Cir.1975) (analyzing the Kelly decision, and holding that where a separate antitrust claim was available to plaintiffs, it should not be a defense to enforcement of an otherwise valid contract); Wechsler v. Hunt Health Sys., Ltd., 216 F.Supp.2d 347 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (<HOLDING>). The arbitration agreement is part of an

A: holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing
B: holding that a court may enforce a contract when it does not mandate illegal conduct despite an antitrust violation
C: holding that an agreement in violation of antitrust laws may be enforceable where the parties underlying conduct is legal
D: holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract
B.