With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Before the District Court, Transfield alleged that Weaver was at all material times the corporate alter ego of ICI, and sought to attach Weaver’s property even though the underlying charter dispute involved only ICI. We note that because maritime attachments are granted “on the pleadings,” we assume all allegations in the complaint to be true. See Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd. v. Gardner Smith Pty Ltd., 460 F.3d 434, 438 (2d Cir.2006). On November 19, 2008, garnishee BNP Paribas, acting pursuant to the Attach ment, restrained funds belonging to Weaver pursuant to the Attachment. On March 6, 2009, Weaver moved to vacate the Attachment on the grounds that (1) if Weaver is not the alter ego of ICI, Transfield would not have a valid prima facie maritime claim against Weaver, see id. at 445 (<HOLDING>); or (2) if Weaver is indeed the alter ego of

A: holding that for a rule b attachment to issue plaintiff must state a valid prima facie admiralty claim against the defendant
B: holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review
C: holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence
D: holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1
A.