With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". accord Moore v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., 376 Md. 558, 831 A.2d 12, 16-17 (2003). The question is “whether the allegations in a new suit, ‘if proven to be true, would negate, contradict, and in that sense nullify an essential foundation for the earlier ... judgment.’ ” Sheahy, 284 F.Supp.2d at 282-83 (quoting Green, 828 A.2d at 830). This test is narrower than the transaction test. See Moore, 831 A.2d at 16 (quoting Restatement § 22(2)(B) cmt. F). Generally, the subsequent action will only be precluded if “the prior action had eventuated in a judgment for plaintiff since only in such a case would there be the threat of nullification of the judgment or impairment of rights[.]” Sheahy, 284 F.Supp.2d at 282 (quoting Restatement § 22(2)(B) cmt. F); see also Moore, 831 A.2d at 17 (<HOLDING>). Examples of subsequent judgments “nullifying”

A: holding that under florida law for the purposes of collateral estoppel an attorney is in privity with his or her client in a previous suit when the opposing party in that action brings a subsequent suit against the attorney based in the same facts
B: holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state
C: holding that debtor was not prevented from raising a claim based facts that had served as a successful defense against creditors previous suit to recover the debt
D: holding that a lawsuit against a corporation that purchased assets from a bankrupt is not a claim against the debtor
C.