With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was stopped), kept the same books, undercapitalized Expert HR, or even represented to LM that the Expert HR defendants were significantly involved in the insurance contract at issue. Further, like LM’s alter ego claim against Dalrada, LM has not shown that the Expert HR defendants must be treated as an alter ego of SOG in order to avoid fraud or injustice. Here, it would seem to actually allow an injustice to force the Expert HR defendants to answer for the activities of SOG since LM acknowledges that the representations of the SOG employees, including those purportedly on behalf of the Expert HR defendants, were made without the knowledge of the Expert HR defendants’ management. See Koch Refining v. Farmers Union Cent. Exch., Inc., 831 F.2d 1339, 1345 (7th Cir.1987) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>). For this reason, I grant summary judgment for

A: recognizing doctrine
B: recognizing that the corporate entity is disregarded to prevent fraud or an injustice not to inflict an obligation on an innocent corporation and that the fraud or inequity sought to be eliminated must be that of the party against whom the alter ego doctrine is invoked
C: holding that alter ego is shown from the total dealings of the corporation
D: recognizing that the alter ego doctrine is an equitable doctrine which should be used to prevent inequitable results
D.