With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and his son and (2) the corporate form has been used to achieve a fraudulent and “unequi-table” result. Schlobohm urges the trial court to disregard the corporate fiction and to hold Schapiro and his son personally liable for the actions and debts of the corporate entity. Due to the fact that these allegations were made and evidence concerning alter ego was presented at the special appearance hearing, the alter ego question is at issue in determining whether in personam jurisdiction should be imposed upon Schapiro. See, e.g., 3-D. Electric Co., 706 S.W.2d at 138 n. 2. The finding that the company is Schapiro’s alter ego may justify a finding that the individual “engages in business” in the jurisdiction through local activities of the corporation. Cf. 3-D Electric, 706 S.W.2d at 139 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we hold that the trial court

A: holding that control person liability adequately alleged because as the sole shareholder of the subsidiary the parent corporation had the potential power to influence and direct the activities of its subsidiary
B: holding that a close relationship between a parent corporation and a subsidiary may justify finding that the parent engages in business in the jurisdiction through the local activities of its subsidiary
C: recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent was alterego of its subsidiary and was being sued for acts of its subsidiary
D: holding that a parent company was not liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty by its subsidiary because the parent company was not a stranger to the business relationship between its subsidiary and the plaintiff giving rise to and underpinning the contract
B.