With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Industrial Carriers Inc. (“ICI”) and Weaver Investment Inc. (“Weaver”) (collectively, “defendants”). Transfield was simultaneously pursuing arbitration in London against ICI, but not against Weaver, based on an underlying maritime charter agreement. (Transfield alleged in the arbitration that it paid ICI $4,331,250.00 for the delivery of the M.V. Cape Heron, but that ICI never delivered the vessel.) ICI, but not Weaver, had registered as a corporation with the New York Department of State in November 2005, years before the commencement of this litig , then Weaver would have been “found within the district” owing to ICI’s registration with the New York Department of State, see STX Panocean (UK) Co., Ltd. v. Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd., 560 F.3d 127, 133 (2d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). On April 17, 2009, the District Court vacated

A: holding that a company registered with the new york department of state is found for purposes of rule b
B: holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york
C: holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership
D: holding that in the event that parties are from different states and the subject matter is national in scope and where the contract states it shall be deemed to be made under the laws of the state of new york and for all purposes construed in accordance with laws of said state new york law applies as the parties choice of law
A.