With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". have failed to make a showing of exceptional circumstances. Neither the parties nor the issues are identical or substantially similar. The Swiss action identifies Pablo as the lone Defendant; by contrast, Ms. Madanes names ten Defendants in this action. See id. In addition, this action concerns activity that is not part of the Swiss action. Consider, for instance, the allegations concerning $7.5 million worth of fraudulent transfers from the New York Account, which are not part of the Swiss complaint The mere fact that “a number of similar issues need to be resolved” in both actions does not mandate dismissal; indeed, this is so even where “the circumstances out of which the two actions arise are identical.” Eskofot A/S v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 872 F.Supp. 81, 90 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (<HOLDING>). The Court further notes that any

A: holding that cause of action for malpractice had accrued before underlying actions dismissal
B: holding that the fcc was not given the power to decide antitrust issues and that its actions do not prevent enforcement of the antitrust laws in federal courts
C: holding that where the trial court has recently taken action mandamus relief was not warranted
D: holding that although underlying circumstances of two actions were identical dismissal was not warranted where american company was not party to english action and plaintiff has stated claims relating to american antitrust law that would not be resolved in english action
D.