With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Steel sought an injunction was “not the type of injury that would entitle a plaintiff to compensation if the injury actually occurred.” Id. at 1270. This conclusion is in error, however, because it ignores the distinction outlined above between showing that antitrust injury actually occurred in the past and showing that it might occur in the future. Indeed, as recognized above, B-S Steel offered different evidence regarding injury for the period after December 2001. Thus, simply because the arbitrators concluded that B-S Steel failed to meet its evidentiary burden in regard to past violations does not mean, as a matter of law, that it would be impossible for B-S Steel to show a threat of future injury. See H.L. Hayden Co. v. Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 879 F.2d 1005, 1022 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The arbitrators’ Reasoned Award therefore

A: holding that liquidated damages provision did not provide adequate remedy at law or prevent injunctive relief
B: holding a claim for money damages is an adequate remedy at law and so it does not provide a sufficient basis for injunctive relief notwithstanding the possibility that a money judgment will be uncollectible
C: holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit
D: holding that the courts determination that the plaintiff failed to make a showing of antitrust injury adequate to allow treble damages does not provide a basis to dismiss plaintiffs robinsonpatman act claim insofar as it seeks injunctive relief
D.