With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". result. Dotson’s behavior was in no way affected by an incorrect interpretation of ERISA: He found himself wronged against his will, sought the only possible legal recourse, and accepted the best available settlement. In fact, if the parties to McLendon had construed ERISA correctly, Dotson would have received a far smaller settlement. That Dotson already received one lucky break hardly makes it unjust to deny him another. 5 . The same is true of cases such as Howard v. Commissioner, 447 F.2d 152 (5th Cir.1971), that decline to recharacterize settlement proceeds based upon the merits of the underlying claims. 6 . Redfield might also be distinguishable on the ground that it involved a change or clarification of state law by a state court. Cf. Harper, 509 U.S. at 100, 113 S.Ct. at 2519

A: holding federal courts are bound by state court determinations of state law
B: holding that the act is retroactive
C: holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor
D: recognizing that state courts may be able to limit the retroactive effect of their declarations of state law
D.