With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court was entirely foreseeable, bringing BPC before the bar of a Puerto Rico-based court in respect to litigation arising out of the financing agreement is neither unreasonable nor fundamentally unfair. It follows, therefore, as night follows day, that Puerto Rico’s long-arm statute reaches this dispute, and the lower court’s exercise of in personam jurisdiction over BPC is both legally and constitutionally supportable. Having III. THE FINANCING AGREEMENTS We turn now to the main event — a series of questions involving the enforceability and interpretation of the financing agreements. In answering these questions, we look to th Co., 978 F.2d 750, 757 (1st Cir.1992) (same); see also Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 239-40, 111 S.Ct. 1217, 1225-26, 113 L.Ed.2d 190 (1991) (<HOLDING>). A. Article 1425. We begin our expedition by

A: holding that a court of appeals should review de novo a district courts determination of state law
B: holding that we review a district courts interpretation of a statute de novo
C: holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo
D: holding that courts of appeals must review the statelaw determinations of district courts de novo
D.