the United States constitutes a ‘commercial activity’ ”). Likewise, in Mortimer Off Shore Servs., Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Germany, we concluded that the Federal Republic of Germany’s assumption of liability for West German bonds issued in the United States was “commercial activity” under FSIA. 615 F.3d 97, 107 (2d Cir. 2010). c) Conclusion I therefore concur in the result. 1 . See Concession Consultants, Inc. v. Mirisch, 355 F.2d 369, 371 (2d Cir. 1966) (ruling that the defendants had forfeited the privilege to object to improper venue when they did not make their objection until after the district court raised the issue sua sponte — long after the defendants had originally filed their answer, which did not oppose venue); Thompson v. United States, 312 F.2d 516, 520 (10th Cir. 1962) (<HOLDING>); Misch on Behalf of Estate of Misch v. Zee
holding that the defendant waived the issue of change of venue where the trial court denied the motion for a change of venue without prejudice stating that it was willing to reconsider the motion at any time during the jury selection process but the defendant never renewed the motion for a change of venue holding that defendant had waived any defense of improper venue when he made the argument only after filing a motion for summary judgment holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument holding in a capital case that the defendant waived his argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue where the trial court took the motion under advisement but the defendant failed to seek a ruling on the motion and failed to renew the motion after the jurors had been qualified holding defense of statute of limitations not waived when asserted in a motion for summary judgment rather than in the answer