With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". we note that Imlay offers no explanation in his second affidavit for the inherent discrepancy in the statement. Therefore, even if we were to consider Imlay’s second affidavit, Tempest’s juris dictional facts based on representations about the structure and progress of the transaction — made to Tempest in Texas and relied upon by Tempest to its detriment — are supported by the documentary evidence and are not negated. These jurisdictional facts are sufficient to support the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction. See Ring Power, 39 S.W.3d at 353-54 (noting that alleged misrepresentation committed partially in Texas satisfied requirement for jurisdiction under long-arm statute); Mem’l Hosp. Sys. v. Fisher Ins. Agency, Inc., 835 S.W.2d 645, 650 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Next, appellees contend that Tempest was on

A: holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident printing customer despite the fact that texas printer solicited the business in alabama and nonresident sent no personnel to texas because nonresident placed additional orders from which it expected to profit sent payments to texas sent and received printing materials to and from texas paid for shipping of printed goods from texas and sent payments to texas the transactions were governed by texas law and substantial part of performance occurred in texas
B: holding misrepresentation made by outofstate defendant to texas plaintiff who relied on it in texas satisfied requirement for jurisdiction under longarm statute based on commission of a tort in part in texas
C: holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied
D: recognizing strong interest in protecting texas citizens where tort was committed in whole or in part in texas
B.