Whether a State agency can divert defrauded investor funds subject to a federal court's exclusive in rem jurisdiction and freeze order, whether a federal receiver can be required to pay liabilities of a non-receivership entity, whether a federal receiver is entitled to an opportunity to refute a state agency's defenses, and whether a federal receiver can claim funds on deposit in support of letters of credit instead of the letters of credit themselves

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a State agency, with notice that certain defrauded investor funds on account at a bank are subject to 28 U.S.C. § 754’s exclusive in rem jurisdiction, a Federal freeze order, and other orders, can divert such funds unbeknownst to the Federal equity receiver relying on the liquidation of those funds to close the receivership estate. 2. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 959(b) and the principles of Supreme Court’s Midlantic decision apply to a liquidating Federal equity receiver, and, if they apply, can they be stretched to require the receiver’s payment of the liabilities of a non-receivership operation whose liabilities arose prior-to the receivership. 3. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 959(b) and Midlantic should be used to catapult a State agency’s regulatory expense “claim” to super-priority status, even though the expenses were never claimed or vetted in court, leaving the Receiver unable to pay the administrative expenses such as attorney fees. 4, Whether 28 U.S.C. § 959(b) and Midlantic supersede a District Court’s orders to protect the Federal equity receiver from such expenses as well as the District Court’s sales orders that eliminate the subject expenses with the transfer of estate properties. 5. Whether a Federal receiver is entitled to an opportunity to refute a State agency’s defenses to contempt and whether all of a Federal receiver’s causes of actions against a State agency, properly filed and contained in a “Summary Proceedings Application,” can be dismissed without hearing or argument. ii 6. Whether a Federal receiver pursuing defrauded investor funds can claim the funds on deposit in support of letters of credit instead of claiming the letters of credit themselves.