With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Hepler asserts that “a review of the evidence ... will show nothing other than the fact that [Hepler] did his job. There is no testimony or evidence, even from the Plaintiffs expert [Hillman], that [Hepler] knew either where the money came from in this matter or the items behind the numbers. There was no testimony or evidence that [Hepler] had access to records or other data that would suggest or indicate that any email or dissemination of information occurred with malice or a reckless disregard for the truth.” Hepler Memorandum, D.E. No. 546, 2-3. The Defendants argue that the corporate Defendants are all of affiliates or subsidiaries of Kore and therefore cannot conspire with one another. See Copperweld Corp. v. Indep. Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 104 S.Ct. 2731, 81 L.Ed.2d 628 (1984) (<HOLDING>). See also Oksanen v. Page Mem’l Hosp., 945

A: recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent was alterego of its subsidiary and was being sued for acts of its subsidiary
B: holding that parent corporation was not estopped from challenging mark which licensor had licensed to wholly owned subsidiary which was independent of parent and had separate employees records accounts offices and only one shared officer
C: holding that parent corporation and whollyowned subsidiary are legally incapable of conspiring with each other
D: holding that a parent and its wholly owned subsidiary are legally incapable of conspiring with one another
D.