With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Connolly, 257 S.W.3d at 840; Spiegel, 571 A.2d at 773. 18 . See Del.Code Ann. tit. 8, § 327 (West 2014); Ch. Ct. R. 23.1(a) (West 2014); Connolly, 257 S.W.3d at 840; Leighton v. Lewis, No. 471,1988, 1990 WL 84704, at *2-3 (Del. May 25, 1990) (precedential order). Unpublished orders of the Delaware Supreme Court are precedential. See Del. Sup.Ct. R. 14(b)(vi)(B), 17 & cmt.; New Castle Cnty. v. Goodman, 461 A.2d 1012, 1013 (Del.1983). Under Delaware law, there is also a demand requirement, but that is not at issue in this appeal. See Ch. Ct. R. 23.1(a) (West 2014); Connolly, 257 S.W.3d at 840. 19 . See Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 327; Ch. Ct. R. 23.1(a); Leighton, 1990 WL 84704, at *2-3. 20 . See Del.Code Ann. tit. 8, § 327; Ch. Ct. R. 23.1(a); L pp.Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); Saudi v. Brieven, 176 S.W.3d 108, 113

A: holding that a shareholder who disposes of his shares loses standing to bring a derivative action no longer a shareholder in the corporation the defendant cannot maintain a derivative action on its behalf
B: holding that a persons lack of standing to institute or maintain a derivative action on behalf of a texas corporation deprives texas courts of subjectmatter jurisdiction and the proper procedure is to dismiss the derivative action for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction
C: holding appealable district courts order dismissing for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction due to determination of exclusive tribal court jurisdiction
D: holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction and subjectmatter jurisdiction is essential to courts authority to hear case
B.