Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
77p(f)(2). Id. § 77v(a). So understood, the Jurisdiction Provision vests the federal courts with exclusive jurisdiction over covered class actions asserting claims under the Securities Act (“Securities Act class actions”). As a result, if a Securities Act class action is initiated in state court, that action is not barred from removal; indeed, such action must either be removéd to federal court or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Because the instant action is a putative Securities Act class action, the New York state court was not a “court of competent jurisdiction” under the Anti-Removal Provision, and the action was therefore properly removed. In. so holding, this court joins a growing consensus among district courts in the Second Circuit. Compare Hung, 2016 WL 299034, at *4 ; In re Fannie Mae 2008 Sec. Litig., No.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that federal jurisdiction over rico claims is concurrent and not exclusive
B. holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts
C. holding that a state securities claim which alleged federal mail wire and securities violations as the predicate acts did not arise under federal law and thus did not create federal jurisdiction
D. holding that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over  1983 claims
E. holding that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over securities act class actions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.