With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". applied a 27% marketability discount to arrive at a per-share value of $22.60. The two witnesses testifying on behalf of Sieg stated that the directors thought this figure represented the fair value of the dissenters’ stock. They believed their assessment of value was supported by their prior experience in valuing the stock of Sieg’s other subsidiaries. The stock of the other subsidiaries had been valued similarly resulting in only one objection, that objection being the subject of Sieg I. (Sieg I was not decided on appeal until after the merger of SiegFort Dodge into Sieg took place.) The directors also considered a 1993, arms-length sale of a small number of Sieg-Fort Dodge shares for $30.00 per share. Cf. Chrome Data Sys., Inc. v. Stringer, 109 Or.App. 513, 820 P.2d 831, 833 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Because the financial condition of Sieg-Fort

A: holding that exercising general jurisdiction over defendant was improper where its actual sales in florida were a small percentage of the total sales and therefore these sales were de minimis 
B: holding consideration of prior sales of stock to friendly buyers was appropriate
C: holding when defendant raised affirmative defense of total failure of consideration that even assuming the acquired stock became worthless the worthlessness of the stock did not constitute a failure of consideration when in exchange for note defendant received 2500 shares of stock   as well as all the rights privileges and benefits of a shareholder director and officer emphasis supplied punctuation omitted
D: holding that the transfer of stock in an insolvent corporation did not constitute fair consideration to support conveyance of property to its stockholder
B.