With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". HHB&T’s conduct is the allegedly -wrongful dishonor of the letter of credit. As stated above, however, the agreement that formed the basis for that dishonor fails under the D’Oench doctrine because it is not properly reflected in HHB&T’s records. The D’Oench doctrine also bars Young’s fraud claim. NPNB and HHB&T executed an escrow agreement that provided that HHB&T would act as the escrow agent to facilitate the transfer of Young’s $550,000 loan proceeds between NPNB and SAFIG. Pursuant to that agreement, NPNB wired Young’s $550,000 loan proceeds to HHB&T on September 23, 1988. On or about September 30,1988, HHB&T, in accordance with the terms of the escrow agreement, forwarded the $550,000 to Credit Suisse for deposit in SAFIG’S Credit Suisse account. No one 1332, 1338 (1st Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). We agree with these courts that the Ninth

A: holding new value exception exists
B: holding that claims that do not diminish or defeat the fdics interest in any specific asset are nevertheless doench barred in light of the established purpose of the doench  doctrine to protect the fdics reliance on the banks records
C: holding that new value exception still exists
D: holding that no complete innocence exception to the doench doctrine exists
D.