With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Produc not. Prior to FIRREA, courts adopted a so-called “provability test” in order to determine the types of claims available against the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for a failed bank. Under the common law test, a claim was deemed provable if: (1) it existed before the bank’s insolvency and did not depend on any new contractual obligations arising thereafter; (2) liability on the claim was absolute and certain in amount when suit was filed; and (3) the claim was made in a timely manner. See Dababneh v. FDIC, 971 F.2d 428, 434 (10th Cir.1992); First Empire Bank-New York v. FDIC, 572 F.2d 1361, 1367-69 (9th Cir.1978). The first prong of the provability test requires that the claim must arise from a contract in existence prior to insolvency. See, e.g., McMillian, 81 F.3d at 1047 (<HOLDING>); accord First Empire, 572 F.2d at 1367

A: holding that provability rule was satisfied in case of employee severance contract that existed before banks insolvency
B: holding that an attorney approval clause in a contract for the sale of real estate was a part of that contract and would have to be satisfied for the underlying contract to be enforceable
C: holding that severance pay policy was part of employment contract
D: holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee
A.