With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the amount of a[n] [indirect] plaintiffs damages attributable to the violation, as distinct from other, independent factors”; (2) the “complicated rules” courts would be forced to adopt to “apportion[ ] damages among plaintiffs removed at different levels of injury from the violative acts, to obviate the risk of multiple recoveries”; and (3) the existence of a “directly injured victim[ ]” who “can generally be counted on to vindicate the law” and serve the law’s “general interest in deterring injurious conduct.” Id. at 269,112 S.Ct. 1311. Holmes follows a course marked by a long line of Supreme Court cases denying antitrust standing to plaintiffs who suffer derivative or “passed-on” injuries. See, e.g., Ill. Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 729, 97 S.Ct. 2061, 52 L.Ed.2d 707 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Associated Gen. Contractors, 459 U.S. at

A: holding that an indirect purchaser lacked standing under the antitrust laws to sue for overcharges passed on to them by intermediaries
B: holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
C: holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation
D: holding that employers have standing to sue
A.