Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the legislative history behind § 544(a)). The Bankruptcy Code does not authorize the Trustee to collect property or money except that which is owed to the estate. 2. The Trustee alternatively contends that the conspiracy claim belongs to the bankruptcy estate because, unlike in Caplin, the claim here seeks to remedy an injury to all of Bradley’s creditors and not merely a subset thereof. Even assuming that any or all of Bradley’s creditors could properly assert the claim, we disagree that this fact alone confers standing on the Trustee. This court recently clarified that, when determining whether a claim is property of the bankruptcy estate such that the trustee has standing to assert it under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a), the distinction between claims that 52-53 (5th Cir.1987) . But Texas law does not suggest that Bradley
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding an alter ego action could be brought by the debtor corporation under texas law
B. holding jurisdiction over an individual may not usually be predicated on jurisdiction over a corporation unless the corporation is the alter ego of the individual or when the individual perpetrates a fraud
C. recognizing that pursuant to the traditional application of the alter ego doctrine corporate form may be disregarded when the corporation is the mere instrumentality or business conduit of another corporation or person
D. recognizing that the alter ego doctrine is an equitable doctrine which should be used to prevent inequitable results
E. holding that alter ego is shown from the total dealings of the corporation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.