With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the bankruptcy court and district court erred in relying upon Pearlman to award the interpleaded funds directly to OTS. We note that in so holding, those courts cited several appellate cases applying Pearlman. On examination, these cases involve very different facts. None provide authority for awarding the interpleaded funds directly to OTS. Indeed, in the most recent of those cases, the Third Circuit held that “funds owed by the federal agencies to [a bankrupt contractor] should be paid to [it] as debtor in possession pursuant to the broad language of section 541 of the Code.” Universal Bonding Ins. Co. v. Gittens & Sprinkle Enters., Inc., 960 F.2d 366, 376 (3d Cir.1992); see also O’Rourke v. Seaboard Sur. Co. (In re E.R. Fegert, Inc.), 887 F.2d 955, 958-59 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Active Fire Sprinkler Corp. v. U.S. Postal

A: holding that if contractor is hable to sub that liability though not yet satisfied by payment might well constitute actual damages to the contractor and sustain their suit under rule that contractor may only sue to recover its own damages
B: holding in part that the liability insurance company of the subcontractor which had named the general contractor as an additional insured on the subcontractors policy was liable to reimburse the general contractor for a settlement payment the general contractor had made to the subcontractors employee
C: holding that an agreement which required the submission of an affidavit of payment to subcontractors or lien waivers before payment was made by the general contractor was for the direct benefit of the subcontractors
D: holding that bankruptcy trustee for contractor could not avoid prepetition payment of funds from contractor to subcontractors
D.