Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
conduct of the parties to the joint venture: “We have long held that concerted activity does not turn simply on whether the parties involved are legally distinct- entities. Instead, we have eschewed formalistic distinctions in favor of a functional consideration of how the parties involved in the alleged anticompetitive conduct actually operate.” 560 U.S. at 191, 130 S.Ct. 2201 (emphasis added). The Court went on to say that in looking at how the parties actually operate, “we have repeatedly found instances in which members of a legally single entity violated § 1 when the entity was controlled by a group of competitors and served, in essence, as a vehicle for ongoing concerted activity.” Id. (citing United States v. Sealy, Inc., 388 U.S. 350, 87 S.Ct. 1847, 18 L.Ed.2d 1238 (1967) ). The stated intent on the part of the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a party waived the right to allege contrary facts on appeal eg that defendant was not an agent or instrumentality of the mexican government for sovereign immunity purposes where the party alleged that the defendant was an agent or instrumentality in its complaint
B. holding that sealy was not a single entity but instead an instrumentality of the individual parties
C. holding that an action naming a state entity as a defendant did not constitute an action against the state because the state entity was sued in its capacity as receiver
D. holding that connecticut courts look to the identity or instrumentality test to determine whether one corporate entity can properly be held responsible for the obligations of another corporate entity
E. holding that an entity majorityowned by an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state is itself an agency or instrumentality of that foreign state under the fsia
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.