With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 360.010 is expressly preempted by HOLA pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 560.2. HOLA authorized the Office of Thrift Supervision (“OTS”) to promulgate regulations providing “for the organization, incorporation, examination, operation, and regulation” of federal savings associations and federal savings banks. 12 U.S.C. § 1464(a). The OTS received broad rulemaking authority to preempt state laws that would otherwise govern the banking activities of federal savings associations and banks. Id. at § 1465. The OTS promulgated a regulation, 12 C.F.R. § 560.2, occupying the field in connection with the lending operations of federal savings associations and banks and this regulation expressly preempts state laws such as state usury laws. See Molosky v. Washington Mutual, Inc., 664 F.3d 109 (6th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). But the Plaintiff contends that the

A: holding that litigating franchise dispute in michigan does not require that michigan law govern dispute as michigan franchise investment law does not expressly void choice of law provisions in franchise agreement
B: holding that the law of michigan rather than the forum applied to manufacturers claim of attorneyclient privilege in a products liability suit because the communication took place in michigan and therefore michigan had most significant relationship to communication
C: holding that the michigan usury act mcla  43831 a statute setting forth the legal interest rate in michigan is preempted according to the explicit terms of hola
D: holding michigan friend of the court employees absolutely immune from suit under  1983
C.