Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
citing Letson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 523 F.Supp. 1221, 1230 (N.D.Ga.1981). Camfield, 719 F.2d at 1364. 14 . There is nothing in the record which would indicate that Wesley would be unable to receive the quantities of grain covered by the HTAs. 15 . As Judge Easterbrook has astutely observed, ‘'[ejrroneous business judgments many months after a contract was formed do not, however, change the nature of the contract from a forward to a future.” Nagel v. ADM Investor Servs., 65 F.Supp.2d 740, 750 (N.D.Ill.1999), affirmed, 217 F.3d 436, 441 (7th Cir.2000). 16 . Because FAC-MARC was not a signatory to the guarantee agreement entered into by ADM and Agri-Plan, the guaranteed IB relationship between ADM and Agri-Plan would not render FAC-MARC an agent of ADM. See Cunningham, 65 F.3d at 1358
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that nonsignatory was estopped from denying applicability of arbitration clause where nonsignatory received direct benefits from contract including lowered insurance rates and the ability to sail under the french flag
B. holding that liquidated damages provision in trust agreement would not bind nonsignatory because it was merely helpful to the trustees but  not essential to  management of the funds
C. holding that nonsignatory to ib guarantee agreement possessed no authority from fcm  express implied or apparent  to conduct business relating to commodity pools nonsignatory to ib guarantee agreement was never an agent of any kind for fcm
D. holding that an exception to the rule that a nonsignatory cannot invoke arbitration exists when under agency or related principals the relationship between the nonsignatory and a signatory is sufficiently close that the only way to avoid eviscerating the arbitration agreement is to allow the nonsignatory to compel arbitration
E. holding nonsignatory defendants who were sued separately from signatory defendants on same claims could enforce arbitration agreement under this equitable exception further nonsignatory defendants were undisputedly agents or servants of signatory defendants
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.