With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and Associates, Inc. v. Person County, 92 N.C. App. 129, 140, 374 S.E.2d 165, 172 (1988), disc. review denied, 324 N.C. 337, 378 S.E.2d 799 (1989). “Other jurisdictions that have considered the issue favor disclosure, but the majority view appears to be that an award will not be disturbed where the undisclosed relationship is not substantial.” Id. at 140, 374 S.E.2d at 172; see Annotation, Setting Aside Arbitration Award on Ground of Interest or Bias of Arbitrators, 56 A.L.R.3d 697 (1974). Finally, in those cases in which arbitrator misconduct has led to the vacation of an award, the arbitrators’ actions and behavior have been different in kind and degree from the casual comments of arbitrator Southworth here. See Fashion Exhibitors v. Gunter, 291 N.C. at 221-22, 230 S.E.2d at 389 (<HOLDING>); Ruffin Woody v. Person County, 92 N.C. App.

A: holding that actions of arbitrators in gathering evidence outside the scheduled hearings and without notice to the parties constituted misconduct sufficient to vacate the award
B: holding that uncouth sarcastic and critical comments by arbitrators during the hearing amounted to misconduct under gs  156713 sufficient to vacate the award
C: holding that the party seeking to vacate the award has the burden of providing the court with the evidence to support its arguments
D: holding that under the faa  10a arbitration panels refusal to continue hearings to allow witness to testify the only witness with evidence of fraud not found from other sources was fundamental unfairness and misconduct sufficient to vacate the award
A.