With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". due process clause — our holding today is consistent with the many other jurisdictions’ holdings on this issue. Federal courts presiding over diversity cases and applying state law have held that nonresident guarantors do not purposefully avail themselves of the benefits and protections of the laws of the forum state merely by executing a guarantee of an obligation of a resident debtor in connection with a local project in favor of a resident creditor, particularly where the guarantor has no financial interest in the debtor. For example, in Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Ass’n v. Alchemy Industries, Inc., 797 F.2d 565 (8th Cir.1986), the underlying transaction was the construction of a processing plant in Arkansas. Alchemy Industries, Inc., e 352 F.Supp. 1210, 1211 (N.D.Ill.1973) (<HOLDING>); Misco Leasing, Inc. v. Vaughn, 450 F.2d 257,

A: holding that being a guarantor alone is an insufficient basis to invoke personal jurisdiction
B: holding that a choice of law provision is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant
C: holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant because plaintiff failed to show that defendant was assignee of assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction
D: holding no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor
D.