Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(2008) (“There is no absolute rule by which to determine what contracts are against public policy, but each case must be determined from all the circumstances thereof, the courts declaring a contract void for such reason only where it is clearly contrary to the public interests .... ”)). In making such a determination in this case, the Court must consider competing pu 300, 319-20 (2d Cir.2009) (refusing to enforce a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement as against public policy “because to ... [enforce it] would grant [the defendant] de facto immunity from antitrust liability by removing plaintiffs’ only reasonably feasible means of recovery,” while affirming the arbitrability of antitrust claims more widely); Redel’s Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 498 F.2d 95, 98-99 (5th Cir.1974) ; Fox Midwest Theatres, Inc. v. Means, 221 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a general release of all claims did not operate by its terms to bar prospective antitrust claims nor could it in view of public policy
B. holding that despite release language discharging defendant from claims upon or by reason of any matter cause or thing whatsoever from the beginning of the world to the day of these presents release did not bar any claims accruing after the date of execution
C. holding that a plaintiff may not assert claims based on statements she did not view
D. holding that certain claims could not be a class issue in part because the complaint did not mention the claims
E. holding that release which barred all claims from the beginning of the world to the day of the date of these presents included all claims which had matured at the time of its execution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.