Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
applicable under the contract; and (3) what volume of gas is covered by the properly redetermined price. Under the parties’ agreement, however, the extent to which these “additional matters” are nonarbitrable is open to serious question. For example, in varying degrees, the plaintiffs’ three examples of “additional matters” appear to fall within the scope of the parties’ dispute on price rede-termination. As such, the three issues may be arbitrable as necessary sub-issues, to be resolved by the arbitrators in their ruling on the price redetermination question. See Prudential Lines, 704 F.2d at 59 (noting that the resolution of an arbitrable dispute may “necessarily implicate[] resolution of several sub-issues); McAllister Bros. v. A & S Transp. Co., 621 F.2d 519, 523 (2d Cir.1980) . In any event, even if the plaintiffs’ fifth
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that whether the contract was abandoned by movant was inextricably tied up with the merits of the underlying arbitrable dispute regarding the adequacy of the movants contract performance
B. holding that contract promise to litigate any dispute arising from the contract in the english courts was prima facie valid quoting underlying contract
C. holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur
D. holding that a settlement agreement is an arbitrable subject when the underlying dispute is arbitrable
E. holding that the plain language of the parties contract which limited the cases eligible for submission to arbitration rendered the underlying dispute not arbitrable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.