Detailed Instructions: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Q: 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
Holding statements: (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 puffery is not actionable under the securities laws (D) 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 (E) holding that provision of securities exchange act allowing injunction against one who is violating or will violate securities laws does not confer subject matter jurisdiction over dispute with individual not accused of such violations
A:
holding federal law does not prevent a state from choosing between prospective operation of its decision and that of relation backward