With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of triggering the ninety day limitations period. The RTC argues that the ninety day period should not begin to run until it is formally substituted in the state court action. Plaintiffs argue that the ninety day period should begin to run from the day the RTC is appointed receiver. Although there is no relevant authority in this circuit clarifying this point, other courts have decided the issue.' Most courts that have faced the issue have determined that the ninety day period begins to run from the day the RTC is appointed receiver. See Montalvo Santiago v. Resolution Trust Corp., 779 F.Supp. 632, 633-34 (D.P.R.1991); Towns Real Estate & Appraisal v. Resolution Trust Corp., 753 F.Supp. 914 (N.D.Ala.1991). Cf. Woburn Five Cents Sav. Bank v. Hicks Inc., 930 F.2d 965 (1st Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). According to these courts, to hold otherwise

A: holding that limitation period begins to run at the time of the breach
B: holding that a banks fdic certificate of insurance was sufficient to establish that the bank was insured by the fdic
C: holding that the oneyear period begins to run when the mandate of the court of appeals issues
D: holding that the limitation period for the fdic to remove begins to run when the fdic is appointed receiver
D.