With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". purpose in enacting TRIA § 201 was to “ ‘deal comprehensively with the problem of enforcement of judgments rendered on behalf of victims of terrorism’ ” (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 107-779, at 27 (2002) (Conf.Rep.), reprinted in 2002 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1430, 1434)). Making the FSIA’s standard more flexible does not help, either. If either the Samantar non-individual, requirement or the majority-ownership requirement is applied, TRIA § 201 would still be toothless. Sovereign countries — the parties the FSIA contemplates- — operate with more transparency, and their agencies or instrumen-talities are likelier to be diplomatic organs or state-owned enterprises with clear ownership structures that makes application of § 1603(b) feasible. See, e.g., Filler v. Hanvit Bank, 378 F.3d 213, 217 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); S & S Mach. Co. v. Masinexportimport, 706

A: holding that the hague convention applied because while minnesota law permitted a foreign corporation to be served with process through the secretary of states office the applicable statute also required the secretary of state to mail a copy of the summons to the foreign corporation before service was effectuated
B: holding that the actual amount of capital employed in the state by a foreign corporation was to be based on the property of the corporation that was within the state and that was used in business transacted within the state
C: holding that the korean deposit insurance corporation was an organ of a foreign state because it was formed by statute  and presidential decree
D: holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was moot because the challenged provisions of the decree had expired
C.