With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (vacating an award because one of the arbitrators was the son of a vice president of the defendant local union’s international union); Middlesex Mut. Ins. Co. v. Levine, 675 F.2d 1197 (11th Cir. 1982) (affirming the vacation of an award because arbitrator failed to disclose a legal dispute between his family’s company and one of the parties to the arbitration). The inference of bias seems to be heightened when, in addition to the aforementioned factors, the party does not disclose the suspect relationship. See, Commonwealth Corp., supra; Middlesex Mut. Ins. Co., supra. Finally, almost every finding of evident partiality occurs when the arbitrator’s relationship is with one of the parties, not with a witness. Cf., Peabody v. Rotan Mosle, Inc., 677 F. Supp. 1135, 1138 (M.D. Fla. 1987) (<HOLDING>); Sofia Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Amoco Transport

A: holding that arbitrators failure to disclose his relationship with an employee and witness for the plaintiff without specific proof of bias did not show evident partiality
B: holding that the appropriate sanction was to require the defendant to disclose the nature of the agreement with the witness
C: holding that the state courts determination that the petitioner could not show prejudice because he did not allege that the witness was available to testify was a reasonable application of federal law to the facts of the case
D: holding that arbitrators failure to disclose that his law partners brother was the expert witness attorney did not show evident partiality because the relationship was trivial
D.