With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of its opinion, the majority states that various actions in Israel regarding land known to be in Texas do not constitute contacts with Texas. These conclusions conflict with the broad construction that the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Texas, and this court have given as to what a “contact with the forum state” is for purposes of a personal-jurisdiction analysis. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2184, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (“So long as a commercial actor’s efforts are ‘purposefully directed’ toward residents of another state, we have consistently rejected the notion that an absence of physical contacts can defeat personal jurisdiction there.”); Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co., 278 S.W.3d 338, 337-40 (Tex.2009) (<HOLDING>); Alenia Spazio, S.p.A. v. Reid, 130 S.W.3d

A: holding that a defendants acceptance in california of an assignment of oil and gas leases was a contact with texas for personaljurisdiction purposes because the assignment was of real property interests located in texas even though the defendant never physically entered texas
B: holding that the transfer of all rights interests and control in property assigned was an effective assignment occurring at the time the assignment was perfected not later when proceeds paid
C: holding plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the validity of an assignment from mers to bac because she was not a party to the assignment and the assignment did not affect her underlying obligation to make timely payments
D: holding article 9 inapplicable to an assignment of a mortgage on real estate
A.