With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". through Frequent Flyer in particular. Even so, it is a reasonable inference that American could not have known the full extent of Frequent Flyer’s activities, considering George’s testimony that Frequent Flyer transactions were “caught” only between three to ten percent of the time. American moved for a temporary injunction when it learned the full extent of Frequent Flyer’s activities and Frequent Flyer refused to discontinue those activities even in the face of American’s suit. American should not be denied its ability to obtain injunctive relief to which it is otherwise entitled simply because it took some time for it to discover Frequent Flyer’s admittedly concealed activity. See Sharma v. Vinmar Int’l, Ltd,., 231 S.W.3d 405, 428-29 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). We hold that the trial court’s injunction

A: holding that a railroad company was unauthorized to sell excess electricity the company generated because such action was not directly and immediately appropriate to functioning as a railroad
B: holding that complete preservation of status quo in case involving improper use of trade secrets to operate competing chemical sales company was that new company would not be able to sell any of the disputed chemicals
C: holding that a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen
D: holding that plaintiffs failure to mention vice president of thirdparty company in initial disclosures was harmless because plaintiffs mentioned president of company and defendants conducted no discovery of company
B.