With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Soundness Act does not enumerate, and its statutory scheme does not support, the FHFA’s authority as conservator to establish broad, prospective rules regarding classes of mortgages that are eligible for purchase by the regulated entities. In other cases upon which Defendants rely, federal agencies undertook the ordinary day-to-day functions of an entity acting as conservator or receiver to wind up the affairs of the failed financial institutions. See e.g., Ward v. Resolution Trust Corp., 996 F.2d 99, 104 (5th Cir.1993) (finding that the district court was without jurisdiction to enjoin the sale of certain real property because disposing of the assets of the failed bank was a “routine ‘receivership’ function”); In re Landmark Land Co. of Okla., Inc., 973 F.2d 283, 290 (4th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Defendants also cite Barrows v. Resolution

A: holding that the resolution trust corporation rtc as a conservator had authority beyond the reach of the district courts injunctive power to call a meeting of the shareholders to elect new management
B: holding that the trustee could not bring a claim against sole shareholders of bankrupt corporation where shareholders had not looted or otherwise injured the corporation
C: holding that corporate president who called and participated in shareholders meeting to elect directors was estopped from questioning the legality of the meeting and election of directors who later removed him
D: holding that in a merger shareholders are effectively purchasing shares in a new corporation while losing their status as shareholders in the previous corporation
A.