With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 6, 1989). None of these prior decisions address the precise issue here, though they do provide some insight on the issue. But appellate courts in our sister states have addressed the issue, and as recognized by the Green I Court, one case, Miner v Fashion Enterprises, Inc, 342 Ill App 3d 405, 415; 276 Ill Dec 652; 794 NE2d 902 (2003), set forth the following principle: We do note that in Miner, [342 Ill App 3d] at 415, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled that “a judgment creditor may choose to file a new action to pierce the corporate veil of a judgment debtor in order to hold individual shareholders and directors liable for a judgment against the corporation.” [Green I, 282 Mich App at 304-305.] See also Westmeyer v Flynn, 382 Ill App 3d 952, 956; 321 Ill Dec 406; 889 NE2d 671 (2008) (<HOLDING>). The Kentucky Supreme Court has also opined on

A: holding a shareholders cause of action accrued for statute of limitations purposes when shareholders and directors of a company asserted a right to stock which was hostile to the plaintiffs claim to the stock
B: holding that corporation can file an answer when the plaintiffs cause of action is such as to endanger rather than advance corporate interests but not where the cause of action is fraud against the corporate directors
C: holding that individual shareholders of a corporation could disregard the corporate form and assert that a loan made to their corporation was usurious where the lender insisted that the shareholders incorporate an entity to receive the proceedseven though the proceeds were for the individual shareholders benefitsolely to avoid the lower usury rate for individual borrowers
D: recognizing holding in miner that a judgment creditor can file a new action to seek to pierce the corporate veil of a judgment debtor and hold individual shareholders and directors liable
D.