Suit against Krasoff are true. The Court wants to emphasize, however, that it is not making any findings that Krasoff in fact committed the bad acts alleged by KRD. 9 . Tauch replaced Krasoff as the managing member of the Debtor more than two years before the Petition Date. [Finding of Fact Nos. 6 & 9]. Therefore, any claims that the Debtor has against Krasoff for his stealing corporate funds accrued pre-petition and were in existence on the Petition Date. 10 . There is no question that Texas law governs whether the State Court Claims are derivative or direct claims. Crocker v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 826 F.2d 347, 349 (5th Cir.1987) (“State law determines whether a shareholder may maintain a nonderivative action.”); see also In re Blanton, 105 B.R. 811, 821 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1989) (<HOLDING>). 11 . At the TI Hearing, Tauch testified that
recognizing this texas rule recognizing the same rule in texas courts holding that jurisdiction existed over two georgia residents who leased a machine from a texas resident because they 1 solicited and negotiated the lease agreement by two telephone calls to texas 2 sent correspondence and payments by mail to texas 3 paid for the transfer of the machine from texas and 4 caused their insurance agent to contact the texas resident in texas to arrange coverage for the machine 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 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