With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Award, the Cayman Islands action seeks a(l) determination that the District Court wrongfully ordered almost $319 million to be paid to KBC pursuant to the federal judgments confirming and enforcing the Award, and (2) return of all funds obtained by KBC “pursuant to the Arbitral Award (and its enforcement).” Although Pertamina makes new factual allegations in support of its claim that the Award should not have been enforced against it, these new factual allegations are not sufficient to undermine the preclusive effect of several earlier federal court decisions that (1) the Award should be enforced and (2) KBC is entitled to Pertamina’s New York funds in an amount sufficient to satisfy the Award. See Campaniello Imports, Ltd. v. Saporiti Italia S.p.A., 117 F.3d 655, 661-63 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982)

A: holding that an unappealed order is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes
B: holding that because relitigation of issue was barred by collateral estoppel res judicata determination of finality of judgment dismissed for lack of standing was not relevant
C: holding that a district court properly dismissed as barred by res judicata an independent action for rescission of a prior judgment on the basis of fraud where the plaintiff failed to mount a viable direct attack on the earlier judgment
D: holding that res judicata is not applicable to a claim for relief that was unavailable in the earlier action
C.