Opinion ID: 764874
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Most of the requirements on which plaintiffs focus are

Text: 28 not specific and mandatory. 29 Four of the five requirements are to maintain asset values, avoid sales that reduce franchise value, maximize value, and schedule sales based on various concerns: 30  The RTC's Asset Management and Disposition Manual has an asset-marketing section, whose purpose ... is to establish policy guidelines for the packaging and sale of loans and other assets. It declares a policy of tak[ing] the necessary steps to ensure that asset integrity and value are maintained in order to maximize sales opportunities. 31  The above section also notes that [a]sset sales should ... occur quickly after [a financial] institution is placed into conservatorship if the sale does not negatively impact the franchise value of the institution. 32  The Background paragraph of a directive on selling and managing securities says that the RTC is charged with, among other things, the maximization of value in the timely and efficient disposition of securities. The same directive also lists responsibilities of the RTC Capital Markets Branch. It directs the Branch to [m]anage and schedule timing of securities sales based on needs of institutions, market conditions, type of security, and ease of sale. 33 None of the four constitutes a specific and mandatory requirement as this court's precedents define that term. Instead, they all state general goals, or sets of objectives to balance, in precatory rather than mandatory language. 34 In Tippett this court held that a Park Service policy that [t]he saving of human life will take precedence over all other management actions was too general to remove the discretion from [a Park Ranger's] conduct in a situation that threatened human life. See 108 F.3d at 1197. In Daigle this court addressed a statute defining environmental-remediation actions necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare. The statute specified that the actions should attain a degree of cleanup ... [which,] at a minimum ... [en]sures protection of human health and the environment. See Daigle, 972 F.2d at 1540 (analyzing 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(23) & 9621(d)(1)). It thus specified minimum attainments without specifying a course of action to attain them. This court held the statute did not contain specific and mandatory directives. See id. 35 The four passages above are no more specific or mandatory than those in Tippett and Daigle. The first, which refers to RTC policy, leaves it to employees to decide which steps are necessary. The second mentions asset sales that negatively impact the franchise value of the institution as an unelaborated caveat to a provision encouraging sales. It does not mandate any specific process or formula for determining which sales will have such an impact. The third describes maximization of value as one RTC duty among other things. It neither elaborates that general command nor specifies how to perform the discretionary task of balancing timeliness, efficiency, and return. The final passage lists four broad considerations to balance, in an unspecified calculus, without specifying a course of action for the complex task of managing asset sales. 36