With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". where the suit is brought; that is, in Ecuador. First, as Gallo points out, Ecuador’s repeal of Decree 1038-A is a strong indication that the portion of that decree that invalidates forum selection and choice of law clauses does not constitute strong public policy. Second, to the extent Decree 1038-A may have expressed a public policy against forum selection clauses, the strength or extent of that policy is not sufficient to justify the non-enforcement of the forum selection and choice of law provisions of the contract. Public policy against a forum selection clause will not prevent enforcement of the clauses where the contract implicates international trade and where the complaining party’s substantive rights are not subverted by the choice of law or forum. See Bonny, 3 F.3d at 162 (<HOLDING>). While Andina argues that Bonny, and

A: holding antiwaiver provision of securities laws does not prevent enforcement of contract provision choosing english forum
B: holding federal law does not prevent a state from choosing between prospective operation of its decision and that of relation backward
C: holding that in interpreting a contract we look to the conflict of laws rules of  the forum state  to determine which states laws will be controlling
D: holding that puffery is not actionable under the securities laws
A.