With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 735. Although the FDIC was a party to the Settlement Agreement, it was not a party to this case. Thus, the legal question of whether the FDIC’s agreement to the non-assignability clause in the Settlement Agreement controls over FIRREA’s assignability provision was not before the trial court. The legal question before the trial court, and before this Court, is whether Alma’s assignment of the Second Note from the FDIC is valid. We consider significant that the Second Note did not contain a non-assignability clause, did not reference the Settlement Agreement, and on its face defined “holder” as including “assignees.” The Texas Supreme Court has held that FIRREA’s provisions preempt state law and extend to the FDIC’s assignees. See, e.g., Jackson v. Thweatt, 883 S.W.2d 171, 174 (Tex.1994) (<HOLDING>). Assignees of the FDIC benefit from two other

A: recognizing that under illinois law parties are free to contract for a time period within which a suit may be brought  which is less than the general statute of limitation period applicable to written contracts
B: holding that suit filed within six years of assessment tolls the limitation period indefinitely
C: holding that limitations provision of section 1821d14 of firrea is applicable to suit on note brought by fdics assignee preempts state fouryear limitations period and extends limitation period to six years
D: holding that where promissory note was dated september 261945 suit filed on september 26 1949 was filed within applicable fouryear limitations period
C.