With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". into a contract with an Arkansas corporation for the construction. Several Alchemy shareholders, who were residents of California, guaranteed the construction obligation. After the construction was completed, Alchemy defaulted and the Arkansas corporation sued Alchemy and the individual guarantors. The court upheld a judgment against Alchemy, but reversed the judgment against the guarantors and dismissed those claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that, “[t]he mere fact that the individual defendants guaranteed an obligation to an Arkansas corporation does not subject the guarantors to jurisdiction in Arkansas.” Id. at 573. In fact, the court stated that it had found “no case in which a court has asserted jurisdiction over 558 F.Supp. 1118, 1123 (N.D.Ill.1983) (<HOLDING>); Liberty Leasing Co. v. Milky Way Stores,

A: holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction pursuant to  2209a2 over a defendant who was not transacting  business in illinois within the meaning of  2209al because the plaintiff was a nonillinois corporation and the tort thus occurred outside of illinois
B: holding there was no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor of equipment lease although payments were made to illinois bank the guaranty was accepted in illinois and it provided that it would be gov erned by illinois law
C: holding no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor
D: holding that foreign corporation was not doing business in illinois and thus personal jurisdiction was lacking even though corporation had some contact with the state and maintained a registered agent here because tjhere is nothing in the illinois code of civil procedure that supports asserting in personam jurisdiction over a corporate defendant simply because the plaintiff served summons upon the defendants illinois registered agent
B.