Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the existence of general jurisdiction. Coleman, 83 S.W.3d at 810. The Texas Instruments contract, as set forth above, was a patents cross-licensing agreement that allowed both companies to “design and sell semiconductors without dispute from each other.” Thus, it did not require performance by DENSO Japan in Texas. Moreover, the agreement contains a choice of law provision upport to U.S. Subsidiaries. Appellees argue “[DENSO Japan’s] U.S. subsidiary companies rely on [DENSO Japan] for technical, manufacturing, business, and legal support, which have impacted the Texas f 6) (concluding that there was no general jurisdiction and stating there must be an indication that defendant intended to serve the Texas market before personal jurisdiction can be found); Reid, 130 S.W.3d at 220 . We sustain DENSO Japan’s second issue.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding sending two employees to work in texas and using an office in texas for limited purposes did not support finding of general jurisdiction
B. holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident printing customer despite the fact that texas printer solicited the business in alabama and nonresident sent no personnel to texas because nonresident placed additional orders from which it expected to profit sent payments to texas sent and received printing materials to and from texas paid for shipping of printed goods from texas and sent payments to texas the transactions were governed by texas law and substantial part of performance occurred in texas
C. holding there was no general jurisdiction even though defendant sent  its chief executive officer to texas for a contract negotiation session accepted into its bank account checks drawn on a bank in texas purchased 4 million of goods and equipment from a company in texas and sent employees to texas for training and technical consultation
D. holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied
E. holding there was no general jurisdiction when there was no evidence that defendants advertised or promoted their goods or services in texas solicited business in texas sold their goods or services to a texas entity established a general business office or general business presence in texas or targeted texas markets
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.