Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
which, given the pleadings in this case, is how the occupants of Toyota vehicles allegedly were injured in the underlying cases and will be the focus at trial. See Moore v. Pulmosan Safety Equip. Corp., 278 S.W.3d 27, 38 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (concluding, in products liability action, that no substantial connection existed between defendant’s contacts with Texas and operative facts of litigation because focus of trial would be on injury allegedly caused in Louisiana by a defective product that was manufactured in New York). None of these activities establish contacts that bear a substantial connection to the operative facts of this litigation. See Info. Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Rawlinson, 302 S.W.3d 392, 401 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) ; Yfantis v. Balloun, 115 S.W.3d 175, 183
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. holding that specific jurisdiction requires plaintiff to show that defendants forum contacts be related directly to the subject of the lawsuit
C. holding licensing agreement between defendant and nonparty texas resident was not relevant to specific jurisdiction
D. holding no specific jurisdiction where alleged tortious conduct was not related to defendants contacts with texas
E. holding defendants ownership interest in texas company that was not party to lawsuit was not relevant to specific jurisdiction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.