With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". has shipped no products into the U.S. since 2007. In light of these limitations, and in the absence of additional product distribution, the present record does not support the exercise of general jurisdiction over Nestlé Canada. Plaintiffs seek to acquire general jurisdiction over Cadbury pic and Cadbury Holdings on substantially the same grounds advanced against Nestlé S.A. Plaintiffs claim that the periodic business inspections, quality auditing procedures, and royalty payments required by the Cadbury — Hershey agreements permit the court to exercise general jurisdiction. However, these regular but infrequent business dealings are precisely the type of contacts that the Supreme Court rejected as a basis for general jurisdiction in Helicopteros. 466 U.S. at 417-18, 104 S.Ct. 1868 (<HOLDING>). Hence, the court finds this argument

A: holding that business visits and purchases within a forum even if occurring at regular intervals are not enough to support general jurisdiction over a defendant
B: holding that purchases even if occurring at regular intervals were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation
C: holding that phone and facsimile communications to the forum purchase orders and payments sent to the forum a choice of law clause within the contract regarding the forum state and delivery of the product within the forum state were not enough to satisfy minimum contacts
D: holding that standing alone defendants 4 million in sales in the forum state over a sevenyear period may not have been sufficient to support the exercise of general jurisdiction but that the numerous other contacts with the forum in the case including advertising relationships with dealers and more than 150 visits tipped the balance and led the court to conclude that there were sufficient contacts to allow the exercise of general jurisdiction
A.