With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Fernandez v. Farmers Ins. Co., 115 N.M. 622, 627, 857 P.2d 22, 27 (1993). {53} Other jurisdictions that have addressed the issue have unequivocally held that for purposes of personal jurisdiction, it is not sufficient to establish only instrumentality, and instead a plaintiff must also establish that the corporation that is 960 F.2d 1080, 1091-93 (1st Cir.1992) (deciding the question of personal jurisdiction using federal veil piercing standard for ERISA cases and holding that fraudulent intent and injustice are elements of the standard), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in Cent. States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Reimer Express World Corp., 230 F.3d 934, 940 (7th Cir. 2000); ACE & Co. v. Balfour Beatty PLC, 148 F.Supp.2d 418, 425 (D.Del.2001) (<HOLDING>); Medina v. Four Winds Int’l Corp., 111

A: holding that delaware law requires fraud injustice or inequity to be shown before the alter ego doctrine can be used to find personal jurisdiction over a parent corporation
B: holding an alter ego action could be brought by the debtor corporation under texas law
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
A.