With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". about its products. 10 . Factors the courts have relied upon in determining whether a Texas court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident buyer have included: (1) the state in which the agreement was solicited (and by whom), negotiated, consummated, and performed; (2) whether, after entering into the agreement, the nonresident directed communications to Texas in furtherance of the transaction(s); (3) whether the nonresident earned a profit in Texas from the transaction(s); (4) whether the nonresident paid the cost to ship the goods from Texas; (5) whether the nonresident placed follow-up orders; (6) whether Texas law governed the transactions; and (7) whether payments were sent or to be sent to Texas. Compare-U-Anchor Adver., Inc. v. Burt. 553 S.W.2d 760, 761 (Tex.1977) (<HOLDING>); and 3-D Electric Co. v. Barnett Constr. Co.,

A: holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied
B: holding that jurisdiction existed over two georgia residents who leased a machine from a texas resident because they 1 solicited and negotiated the lease agreement by two telephone calls to texas 2 sent correspondence and payments by mail to texas 3 paid for the transfer of the machine from texas and 4 caused their insurance agent to contact the texas resident in texas to arrange coverage for the machine
C: holding no jurisdiction over nonresident customer where contract was solicited negotiated and consummated in oklahoma for billboards to be built in texas and erected in oklahoma payments were made to texas and defendant would not earn a profit from texas and had no other contact with texas
D: holding that oklahoma law firms receipt and deposit of texas clients payments drawn on a texas bank were fortuitous and thus insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction against firm in texas state court
C.