With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (2d ed.1995). 11 . See, eg., Ruiz, 89 F.3d at 326 ("[The courts of several states have struggled to decide whether [successor liability law] is a part of corporate law or tort law."). 12 . See Webb v. Rodgers Mach. Mfg. Co., 750 F.2d 368, 374 (5th Cir.1985). 13 . 89 F.3d 320, 326 (7th Cir.1996). 14 . See, e.g., Ede v. Mueller Pump Co., 652 F.Supp. 656, 658 n. 1 (D.Colo.1987), disagreed with on different grounds, Florom v. Elliott Mfg., 867 F.2d 570, 579-80 (10th Cir.1989); Reed v. Armstrong Cork Co., 577 F.Supp. 246, 248 (E.D.Ark.1983); Korzetz v. Amsted Indus., 472 F.Supp. 136, 141-42 (E.D.Mich.1979), declined to follow on other grounds, Johnson v. Ventra Group, Inc., 191 F.3d 732, 746 (6th Cir.1999). 15 . See, e.g., In re Asbestos Litigation (Bell), 517 A.2d 697, 699 (Del.Super.1986) (<HOLDING>); American Nonwovens, Inc. v. Non Wovens Eng'g,

A: holding common officers between corporations are not enough to disregard corporate separateness
B: holding that corporate law should apply because key question was legal effect of contracts between corporations
C: holding that a director of a corporation may be held hable for tortious interference with the corporations contracts if she exceeds the scope of her corporate authority in causing the breach of those contracts emphasis added
D: holding that contracts should be interpreted to give effect to all provisions
B.