With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Associated General Contractors omitted). These factors must be “weighed and balanced,” and though the Court has assigned no specific weight to the factors, “individually, collectively or relatively,” the Third Circuit has described the directness factor as “all-important.” Iron Ore, 998 F.2d at 1166-68. The balancé of factors here leads us to conclude that Midland lacks the requisite standing to maintain this action. First, the causation and directness factors, which we will analyze together as the Third Circuit did in Iron Ore, 998 F.2d at 1167-68, cut heavily against Midland given the attenuated causal connection between the anticompetitive practices alleged and the harm that ultimately befell Midland. See Mid-West Paper Products Co. v. Continental Group, 596 F.2d 573 (3d Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). Midland suffered economic loss because the

A: holding that plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum
B: holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit
C: holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing
D: holding that antitrust plaintiff lacked standing due in part to tenuous link between defendants price fixing and plaintiffs injury
D.