Opinion ID: 672864
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Could the Bathgate defendants set off their alleged

Text: 97 damages against their obligations under the notes 98 and the guaranty? 99 The FDIC argues that even if D'Oench Duhme and section 1823(e) did not bar Bathgate's counterclaims or Bathgate otherwise ... established a genuine issue of material fact, neither circumstance would bar the FDIC-Receiver from obtaining judgment against Bathgate or from foreclosing on the collateral ... [because] Bathgate must first obtain judgment on his unliquidated claims and then seek satisfaction of the judgment as a creditor of the failed institution, thereby entitling him to no more than a ratable distribution of the assets of the failed institution. See FDIC Br. at 34 (citing Beighley, 868 F.2d at 784 n. 12). In light of our holdings regarding Bathgate's counterclaims, we need not reach this issue. 100