Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
R. 347; see also Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 234, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 2341, 96 L.Ed.2d 185 (1987) (concluding SEC has specifically approved arbitration procedures of NASD and NYSE). Ottman agrees he signed the U-4 registration agreement, but argues his defamation claim does not involve significant aspects of the employment relationship and is only tenuously linked to his employment. See Ateas v. Credit Clearing Corp. of Am., 292 Minn. 334, 340-50, 197 N.W.2d 448, 452-57 (1972) (concluding no agreement to arbi trate exists because controversy not within scope of arbitration clause). We are asked to determine whether Ottman’s defamation claim, as described in his complaint, falls within the scope of the U-4 registration agreement. See Morgan, 729 F.2d at 1167 ; Johnson, 530 N.W.2d at 795 (concluding
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding complaint allegations must be examined in light of parties contractual terms
B. recognizing that the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true on a threshold motion to dismiss
C. holding that arbitration clauses as contractual agreements must be enforced to their terms
D. holding because legislature knew how to include terms within statutory definition and did not do so statutory definition did not include terms in light of the terms contemporaneous inclusion of the same terms in a separate provision
E. holding that where only one interpretation of contractual terms is possible a court may decide the meaning of those terms as a matter of law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.