With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". nor has any party in the underlying case alleged that, based on BJVSD’s conduct, it believed that BJVSD was a general partner. Thus, absent a showing that BJVSD participated in the control of the business (which has not been made here), BJVSD is not bound by the judgment by virtue of its role as the limited partner of Triton 88. Likewise, Business Organizations Code section 101.106(b) provides t (Tex.App.-Tyler 2006, pet. denied)). This is so even though the economic impact of the alleged wrongdoing may bring about re duced earnings, salaries, or bonuses. See Hall, 380 S.W.3d at 873; Nauslar, 170 S.W.3d at 251. BJVSD has made no showing that it had an individual legal right relative to the underlying judgment and the complained-of post-judgment orders. See Nauslar, 170 S.W.3d at 249 (<HOLDING>); see also Nobles v. Marcus, 533 S.W.2d 923,

A: holding that a party may not recover twice for the same injury simply because he has two legal theories
B: holding that only one whose primary legal right has been breached may seek redress for injury
C: holding that  510 provides a remedy for employees whose pension rights have vested and whose  injury is the lost opportunity to accrue additional benefits
D: holding that bank customers whose personal information was stolen from a company that had been retained by the bank did not suffer any present injury or reasonably certain future injury
B.