Opinion ID: 409289
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: depositor inability to withdraw

Text: 30 Our approach to the requirement of closure foreshadows our view of the district court's holding that because the Bank Board could not identify any depositor who was unable to withdraw funds from his account, the withdrawal requirement of section 1729(c)(2)(C) was not satisfied. We reject this holding. Section 1729(c)(2)(C) does not require that an account holder actually be denied a withdrawal; it only requires that the Bank Board determine that an account holder is unable  to make such a withdrawal. The Bank Board properly so determined in this case. The required inability follows logically from the conclusion that Fidelity was closed. 31 Logic alone, however, need not carry the full burden of this conclusion. We have already indicated that under the circumstances of this case a ceremonial denial of withdrawal by one or more accountholders would serve no useful purpose. Thus, proceeding as we did in our treatment of the closure requirement, we hold that when the Commissioner promulgated her liquidation order and her appointment of the FSLIC as state receiver, and the Board accepted the appointment, the requirement of inability to withdraw was met. We believe that Congress did not intend to require a ritualistic and potentially harmful disruption of business as a prerequisite to a federal receivership where the state has, by appointing FSLIC receiver, manifested its desire to yield control to and cooperate with the Bank Board. Here, as in connection with the closure precondition, we reject possible more narrow interpretations of section 1729(c)(2). We therefore find that the withdrawal requirement was satisfied in this case.