The claimant, AZ, was an English company that manufactured a drug using a chemical, DIP. In 2005, the first defendant, AIC, a Virginia company, agreed to supply quantities of DIP to AZ in England as required, the parties agreeing that, in the event that AZ changed the composition of the drug so as no longer to require DIP, AIC would have first option to supply a replacement under mutually acceptable terms (“the 2005 Agreement”). The second defendant, AC, which was AIC’s trading subsidiary, was made a party to the 2005 Agreement. The 2005 Agreement provided for English law and jurisdiction. In 2007, AZ sought AIC’s proposals for a DIP replacement, but agreement could not be reached. AZ maintained that AIC thereafter ceased to supply DIP, contrary to the 2005 Agreement. In February 2008, AIC and AC commenced proceedings in South Carolina alleging AZ’s breach of the 2005 Agreement and fraud. They then terminated the 2005 Agreement, and indicated to AZ that DIP would be supplied to it only at a price substantially higher than that payable under the 2005 Agreement, and on AIC’s standard terms, which provided for South Carolina law and exclusive jurisdiction. AZ entered into an agreement with AC on those terms (“the 2008 Agreement”), paying sums to AC thereunder. The 2008 Agreement also contained a clause in these terms: