With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". made by the court in Aer Lingus, the majority has misconstrued the holding in that case. Judge Van Graafeiland did lament about the “Kafkaesque quality” of the district court’s decision which resulted in dismissing a case to a foreign jurisdiction where recovery was limited to $260. Id. He did not take issue, however, with the district court’s adherence to Alcoa Steamship, 654 F.2d at 159, where an en banc panel of the Second Circuit concluded that the possibility of a lesser recovery would not preclude dismissal on the ground of forum non con-veniens. Id. Instead, the court held, in part, that the district court erred in failing to apply the same forum non conveniens standard to the appellant, a foreign insurance company, as it would have applied to a United States citizen. Id. at 92 (<HOLDING>). Inasmuch as Judge Van Graafeiland’s fleeting

A: holding that a party who has not expressly or implicitly agreed to be bound by an arbitration agreement cannot be compelled to arbitrate
B: holding that employees affidavit that she never saw arbitration program documents did not raise triable issue of fact as to existence of agreement to arbitrate that would preclude compelled arbitration
C: holding compelled by international treaty
D: holding that nonsignatory settlor and trust beneficiaries could be compelled to arbitrate under account agreement between trustee and merrill lynch which contained an arbitration clause because agreement was the underlying basis for all the claims of the beneficiaries and there would have been no claims without the agreement
C.