Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the officer to personal jurisdiction where the officer “is a ‘primary participant’ in the alleged wrongdoing” or “had ‘control of, and direct participation in the alleged activities.’ ” Matsunoki Group, Inc., 2009 WL 1033818 at *3-4 (citing Wolf Designs, Inc. v. DHR Co., 322 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1072 (C.D.Cal.2004), in turn citing Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp., 768 F.2d 1001, 1021 (9th Cir.1985)); see also Wyatt Technology Corp. v. Smithson, No. CV 05-1309 WMB (RZx), 2005 WL 6132329, *6 (C.D.Cal. Aug. 30, 2005) (“[I]f the agent is ... ‘actively and personally involved in the conduct giving rise to the claim,’ he may be subject to jurisdiction in the plaintiff[’]s forum state,” quoting Balance Dynamics Corp. v. Schmitt Industries, Inc., 204 F.3d 683, 698 (6th Cir.2000) ); accord Balance Dynamics Corp., 204 F.3d at
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding defendants could not be guilty as parties when the state failed to show they knew the criminality of the conduct they assisted
B. holding that request for attorneys fees and damages to attached property in a motion to dissolve a writ of attachment  said to be totally unnecessary to the inquiry of the jurisdiction  constituted a submission by defendant to the exercise of jurisdiction over it personally by the court
C. holding that a corporate officer acting in his or her official capacity could not tortiously interfere with a corporate contract because corporations act only through their officers and agents
D. holding that the court could exercise jurisdiction over corporate officers who actively and personally involved themselves in conduct violating the lanham act notwithstanding the fact that the defendants acted as agents when they did so
E. holding corporate officers and board members liable where they were actively engaged in the management supervision and oversight of the corporations affairs
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.