In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ2736ȱ FEDERALȱ DEPOSITȱ INSURANCEȱ CORPORATION,ȱ asȱ receiverȱ forȱ PARKȱNATIONALȱBANK,ȱ PlaintiffȬAppellee,ȱ v.ȱ RLIȱINSURANCEȱCOMPANY,ȱ DefendantȬAppellant.ȱ ____________________ȱ AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrictȱCourtȱforȱtheȱ NorthernȱDistrictȱofȱIllinois,ȱEasternȱDivision.ȱ No.ȱ12ȱCȱ3790ȱ—ȱMiltonȱI.ȱShadur,ȱJudge.ȱ ____________________ȱ ARGUEDȱJANUARYȱ23,ȱ2015ȱ—ȱDECIDEDȱAPRILȱ30,ȱ2015ȱ ____________________ȱ BeforeȱWOOD,ȱChiefȱJudge,ȱandȱKANNEȱandȱTINDER,ȱCircuitȱ Judges.ȱ WOOD,ȱ Chiefȱ Judge.ȱ Inȱ 2001,ȱ representativesȱ fromȱ theȱ Moodyȱ Bibleȱ Instituteȱ ofȱ Chicagoȱ andȱ aȱ companyȱ calledȱ Sysixȱ Financialȱ signedȱ aȱ masterȱ leaseȱ agreement.ȱ Theȱ docuȬ mentȱ laidȱ theȱ groundworkȱ forȱ futureȱ leasesȱ ofȱ equipmentȱ fromȱ Sysixȱ toȱ Moody.ȱ Sevenȱ yearsȱ later,ȱ inȱ 2008,ȱ twoȱ leaseȱ schedulesȱ forȱ variousȱ computerȱ itemsȱ wereȱ executed;ȱ theyȱ 2ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ2736ȱ appearedȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ signedȱ byȱ Moody’sȱ viceȱ presidentȱ andȱSysix’sȱpresident.ȱSysixȱassignedȱitsȱendȱofȱbothȱleasesȱtoȱ anotherȱ company,ȱ Rockwellȱ Financialȱ Group,ȱ whichȱ inȱ turnȱ acquiredȱloansȱfromȱParkȱNationalȱBankȱ(PNB)ȱtoȱfinanceȱtheȱ twoȱ individualȱ leasesȱ betweenȱ Sysixȱ andȱ Moody.ȱ PNBȱ proȬ curedȱ indemnificationȱ coverageȱ forȱ itsȱ loansȱ toȱ Rockwellȱ fromȱRLIȱInsuranceȱCompanyȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱaȱfinancialȱinstiȬ tutionȱ bond.ȱ Thereȱ was,ȱ however,ȱ aȱ problemȱ atȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ theseȱtransactions:ȱSysix’sȱpresidentȱhadȱforgedȱtheȱsignatureȱ ofȱMoody’sȱviceȱpresidentȱonȱeachȱofȱtheȱtwoȱleaseȱschedules.ȱ Moodyȱ neverȱ agreedȱ toȱ eitherȱ scheduleȱ norȱ didȱ itȱ everȱ reȬ ceiveȱanyȱofȱtheȱpromisedȱequipment.ȱ PNBȱnotifiedȱRLIȱofȱitsȱpotentialȱlossȱunderȱtheȱbondȱRLIȱ hadȱ issued,ȱ butȱ PNBȱ itselfȱ soonȱ wentȱ under.ȱ Actingȱ asȱ reȬ ceiverȱ forȱ PNB,ȱ theȱ Federalȱ Depositȱ Insuranceȱ Corporationȱ (FDIC)ȱsuedȱRLIȱinȱfederalȱcourt,ȱarguingȱthatȱtheȱlanguageȱ ofȱ theȱ bondȱ obligatedȱ RLIȱ toȱ indemnifyȱ PNBȱ (andȱ thusȱ FDIC)ȱ forȱ itsȱ lossesȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ forgeriesȱ onȱ theȱ leaseȱ schedules.ȱ Eventuallyȱ theȱ districtȱ courtȱ grantedȱ summaryȱ judgmentȱinȱFDIC’sȱfavor.ȱBecauseȱweȱagreeȱwithȱtheȱdistrictȱ courtȱ thatȱ theȱ plainȱ languageȱ ofȱ theȱ bondȱ coveredȱ FDIC’sȱ losses,ȱweȱaffirm.ȱ Iȱ Thisȱ seriesȱ ofȱ transactionsȱ beganȱ whenȱ Robertȱ Gunter,ȱ viceȱ presidentȱ andȱ generalȱ counselȱ ofȱ Moody,ȱ andȱ Johnȱ Sheaffer,ȱ presidentȱ ofȱ Sysix,ȱ signedȱ aȱ documentȱ entitledȱ “Masterȱ Equipmentȱ Leaseȱ Agreement”ȱ inȱ Decemberȱ 2001.ȱ Theȱ masterȱ leaseȱ referredȱ toȱ futureȱ leaseȱ schedulesȱ thatȱ theȱ partiesȱ wouldȱ executeȱ “fromȱ timeȱ toȱ time,”ȱ andȱ statedȱ thatȱ eachȱleaseȱscheduleȱ“shallȱconstituteȱaȱseparatelyȱenforceableȱ leaseȱ…ȱforȱtheȱEquipmentȱtherein.”ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ2736ȱ 3 InȱMarchȱ2008,ȱMoodyȱandȱSysixȱpurportedlyȱexecutedȱaȱ leaseȱscheduleȱ(LeaseȱScheduleȱS080),ȱwhichȱboreȱtheȱsignaȬ turesȱofȱSheafferȱandȱGunter.ȱTheȱminimumȱtermȱofȱtheȱleaseȱ wasȱ48ȱmonthsȱbeginningȱAprilȱ1,ȱ2008,ȱwithȱaȱmonthlyȱrentȱ ofȱ$72,691.73ȱforȱhundredsȱofȱpiecesȱofȱcomputerȱequipmentȱ listedȱ inȱ anȱ attachedȱ exhibit.ȱ Scheduleȱ S080ȱ statedȱ thatȱ theȱ totalȱ monthlyȱ rentȱ wasȱ forȱ equipment,ȱ theȱ totalȱ purchaseȱ priceȱofȱwhichȱwasȱnotȱtoȱexceedȱ$2,977,135.49.ȱItȱalsoȱnotedȱ thatȱ itȱ incorporatedȱ theȱ termsȱ andȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ theȱ 2001ȱ masterȱ lease.ȱ Theȱ twoȱ menȱ supposedlyȱ executedȱ aȱ similarȱ leaseȱscheduleȱthatȱsameȱyear,ȱinȱDecemberȱ2008,ȱagainȱforȱaȱ largeȱ batchȱ ofȱ computerȱ equipmentȱ (Leaseȱ Scheduleȱ S084).ȱ TheȱmonthlyȱrentȱforȱScheduleȱS084ȱwasȱ$32,410.51,ȱwithȱtheȱ purchaseȱ priceȱ ofȱ theȱ describedȱ equipmentȱ notȱ toȱ exceedȱ $1,111,024.ȱ Likeȱ Scheduleȱ S080,ȱ Scheduleȱ S084ȱ incorporatedȱ theȱtermsȱofȱtheȱmasterȱleaseȱbetweenȱMoodyȱandȱSysix.ȱButȱ likeȱ Scheduleȱ S080,ȱ Scheduleȱ S084ȱ wasȱ aȱ forgery.ȱ Sheafferȱ signedȱ Gunter’sȱ nameȱ toȱ bothȱ schedulesȱ andȱ createdȱ theȱ termsȱofȱeachȱoutȱofȱwholeȱcloth.ȱSheafferȱadmittedȱasȱmuchȱ inȱ aȱ letterȱ inȱ Decemberȱ 2008,ȱ whereȱ heȱ wrote,ȱ “Theȱ Moodyȱ BibleȱInstituteȱhasȱnoȱideaȱandȱneverȱexcuetedȱ[sic]ȱscheduleȱ 80ȱ0rȱ[sic]ȱ84ȱandȱforȱthatȱmatterȱRockwellȱFinancialȱisȱcomȬ pleteȱ unȱ asareȱ [sic]ȱ thatȱ Iȱ compeltlyȱ [sic]ȱ fabricatedȱ theseȱ deals.”ȱItȱappearsȱfromȱtheȱrecordȱthatȱRockwellȱandȱMoodyȱ discoveredȱtheȱforgeriesȱaroundȱJulyȱ2009;ȱSheafferȱcommitȬ tedȱsuicideȱthatȱmonth.ȱ Inȱ2008,ȱbeforeȱSheaffer’sȱforgeriesȱwereȱdiscovered,ȱSysixȱ assignedȱallȱofȱitsȱrightsȱinȱbothȱleaseȱschedulesȱtoȱRockwell.ȱ Afterȱ eachȱassignment,ȱ Rockwellȱsoughtȱ loansȱ fromȱ PNBȱ toȱ coverȱitsȱendȱofȱtheȱdeal.ȱAȱPNBȱloanȱpresentationȱdocument,ȱ datedȱMarchȱ7,ȱ2008,ȱindicatesȱthatȱRockwellȱinitiallyȱsoughtȱ $3.1ȱmillionȱfromȱPNB;ȱthisȱsumȱwasȱassociatedȱwithȱSchedȬ 4ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ2736ȱ uleȱS080,ȱwhichȱwasȱexecutedȱlessȱthanȱtwoȱweeksȱlater.ȱAnȬ otherȱPNBȱloanȱpresentationȱ documentȱ datedȱ Decemberȱ10,ȱ 2008,ȱshowsȱRockwellȱseekingȱ$1.12ȱmillion,ȱpresumablyȱasȬ sociatedȱwithȱScheduleȱS084,ȱwhichȱwasȱexecutedȱjustȱaȱfewȱ daysȱ afterȱ theȱ presentation.ȱ Aȱ fewȱ weeksȱ afterȱ eachȱ loanȱ presentation,ȱ Rockwellȱ andȱ PNBȱ signedȱ aȱ documentȱ calledȱ “Assignmentȱ andȱ SecurityȱAgreement.”ȱ Thisȱ documentȱ speȬ cificallyȱreferredȱtoȱbothȱtheȱleaseȱscheduleȱinȱquestionȱandȱaȱ separateȱ promissoryȱ noteȱ Rockwellȱ hadȱ executedȱ forȱ aȱ speȬ cificȱ amount.ȱ Theseȱ amountsȱ wereȱ slightlyȱ differentȱ fromȱ thoseȱ onȱ theȱ loanȱ presentations.ȱ Forȱ Scheduleȱ S080,ȱ RockȬ well’sȱ promissoryȱ noteȱ wasȱ forȱ $2,978,334.28,ȱ withȱ monthlyȱ installmentsȱ ofȱ $72,691.73.ȱ (Recallȱ thatȱ theȱ maximumȱ purȬ chaseȱ amountȱ forȱ Scheduleȱ S080ȱ wasȱ $2,977,135.49,ȱ withȱ aȱ monthlyȱ amountȱ dueȱ ofȱ $72,691.73.)ȱ Forȱ Scheduleȱ S084,ȱ Rockwell’sȱ promissoryȱ noteȱ wasȱ forȱ $1,131,989.75,ȱ withȱ aȱ $32,410.51ȱ monthlyȱ paymentȱ (comparedȱ toȱ $1,111,024ȱ onȱ Scheduleȱ S084,ȱ whichȱ hadȱ theȱ sameȱ monthlyȱ amountȱ ofȱ $32,410.51).ȱ InȱMayȱ2009,ȱPNBȱacquiredȱaȱbondȱfromȱRLIȱtoȱcoverȱpoȬ tentialȱ lossesȱ flowingȱ fromȱ itsȱ loansȱ toȱ Rockwellȱ duringȱ theȱ periodȱfromȱMayȱ1,ȱ2009ȱtoȱMayȱ1,ȱ2010.ȱOfȱparticularȱinterȬ estȱ here,ȱ theȱ bond’sȱ Insuringȱ Agreementȱ Eȱ statedȱ thatȱ RLIȱ agreedȱtoȱindemnifyȱPNBȱforȱȱ [l]ossȱ resultingȱ directlyȱ fromȱ theȱ Insuredȱ havȬ ing,ȱinȱgoodȱfaith,ȱforȱitsȱownȱaccountȱorȱforȱtheȱ accountȱ ofȱ others,ȱ …ȱ acquired,ȱ soldȱ orȱ delivȬ eredȱ orȱ givenȱ value,ȱ extendedȱ creditȱ orȱ asȬ sumedȱ liability,ȱ onȱ theȱ faithȱ of,ȱ anyȱ Written,ȱ Originalȱ …ȱ Securityȱ Agreement,ȱ whichȱ (i)ȱ bearsȱ aȱ handwrittenȱ signatureȱ ofȱ anyȱ maker,ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ2736ȱ 5 drawer,ȱissuer,ȱendorser,ȱassignor,ȱlessee,ȱtransȬ ferȱagent,ȱregistrar,ȱacceptor,ȱsurety,ȱguarantor,ȱ orȱofȱanyȱotherȱpersonȱwhoseȱsignatureȱisȱmaȬ terialȱtoȱtheȱvalidityȱorȱenforceabilityȱofȱtheȱseȬ curity,ȱ whichȱ isȱ aȱ Forgery,ȱ orȱ (ii)ȱ isȱ altered,ȱ orȱ (iii)ȱisȱlostȱorȱstolenȱ…ȱ.ȱ AgreementȱEȱalsoȱstatedȱthatȱ“[a]ctualȱphysicalȱpossessionȱofȱ theȱitemsȱlistedȱ…ȱbyȱtheȱInsured,ȱitsȱcorrespondentȱbankȱorȱ otherȱ authorizedȱ representative,ȱ isȱ aȱ conditionȱ precedentȱ toȱ theȱInsured’sȱhavingȱreliedȱonȱtheȱfaithȱofȱsuchȱitems.”ȱAȱfewȱ otherȱ provisionsȱ ofȱ theȱ bondȱ concernȱ usȱ asȱ well.ȱ Theȱ bondȱ definesȱ aȱ “Securityȱ Agreement”ȱ asȱ “aȱ Writtenȱ agreementȱ whichȱ createsȱ anȱ interestȱ inȱ personalȱ propertyȱ orȱ fixturesȱ andȱ whichȱ securesȱ paymentȱ orȱ performanceȱ ofȱ anȱ obligaȬ tion.”ȱ“Original”ȱdocuments,ȱitȱsays,ȱareȱ“theȱfirstȱrenderingȱ orȱ archetype.”ȱ Itȱ alsoȱ specifiesȱ timeȱ limitsȱ onȱ lawsuits:ȱ theyȱ “shallȱnotȱbeȱbroughtȱpriorȱtoȱtheȱexpirationȱofȱ60ȱdaysȱafterȱ theȱoriginalȱproofȱofȱlossȱisȱfiledȱwithȱtheȱUnderwriterȱorȱafȬ terȱ theȱ expirationȱ ofȱ 24ȱ monthsȱ fromȱ theȱ discoveryȱ ofȱ suchȱ loss.”ȱ Finally,ȱ theȱ bondȱ containsȱ whatȱ itȱ termsȱ anȱ “antiȬ bundling”ȱprovision:ȱitȱstatesȱthatȱforȱdocumentsȱcontainingȱ forgeries,ȱ“theȱalterationȱorȱcounterfeitȱorȱsignatureȱmustȱbeȱ onȱ orȱ ofȱ theȱ enumeratedȱ documentȱ itselfȱ notȱ onȱ orȱ ofȱ someȱ otherȱ documentȱ submittedȱ with,ȱ accompanyingȱ orȱ incorpoȬ ratedȱbyȱreferenceȱintoȱtheȱenumeratedȱdocument.”ȱ Atȱ someȱ pointȱ inȱ Augustȱ 2009,ȱ PNBȱ demandedȱ thatȱ Moodyȱ andȱ Rockwellȱ submitȱ paymentsȱ onȱ Schedulesȱ S080ȱ andȱS084.ȱNoȱmoneyȱcame,ȱandȱsoȱPNBȱsuedȱthemȱforȱnonȬ paymentȱ inȱ Septemberȱ 2009.ȱ Aȱ monthȱ later,ȱ PNBȱ gaveȱ RLIȱ noticeȱthatȱitȱhadȱdiscoveredȱaȱpotentialȱlossȱcoveredȱbyȱtheȱ bond.ȱByȱtheȱendȱofȱOctober,ȱhowever,ȱPNBȱhadȱfailed.ȱTheȱ 6ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ2736ȱ Officeȱ ofȱ theȱ Comptrollerȱ ofȱ theȱ Currencyȱ closedȱ PNBȱ andȱ namedȱ FDICȱ asȱ PNB’sȱ receiver.ȱAtȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ FDICȱ enȬ teredȱaȱpurchaseȱagreementȱwithȱU.S.ȱBankȱNationalȱAssociȬ ation,ȱ underȱ whichȱ U.S.ȱ Bankȱ boughtȱ PNB’sȱ assetsȱ andȱ asȬ sumedȱ itsȱ liabilities.ȱ Underȱ theȱ purchaseȱ agreement,ȱ FDICȱ paidȱU.S.ȱBankȱforȱ80%ȱofȱPNB’sȱlossesȱunderȱtheȱtwoȱleaseȱ schedules,ȱandȱU.S.ȱBankȱabsorbedȱtheȱremainingȱ20%;ȱU.S.ȱ Bankȱ alsoȱ settledȱ PNB’sȱ originalȱ lawsuitȱ againstȱ Rockwell.ȱ FDICȱdeterminedȱthatȱitȱwasȱleftȱwithȱlossesȱofȱ$2,103,365.ȱItȱ filedȱaȱclaimȱforȱthatȱamountȱwithȱRLIȱinȱJuneȱ2010,ȱbutȱRLIȱ deniedȱtheȱclaimȱinȱNovemberȱ2010.ȱ BelievingȱthatȱRLI’sȱdenialȱviolatedȱtheȱtermsȱofȱtheȱbondȱ RLIȱhadȱissuedȱtoȱPNB,ȱFDICȱfiledȱaȱbreachȬofȬcontractȱclaimȱ againstȱ RLIȱ inȱ Mayȱ 2012.ȱ Theȱ districtȱ courtȱ hadȱ subjectȬ matterȱ jurisdictionȱ overȱ theȱ suitȱ underȱ 12ȱU.S.C.ȱ §ȱ1819(b)(2)(A),ȱ whichȱ providesȱ thatȱ civilȱ suitsȱ toȱ whichȱ FDICȱisȱaȱpartyȱariseȱunderȱtheȱlawsȱofȱtheȱUnitedȱStates.ȱInȱ Juneȱ 2014ȱ itȱ resolvedȱ theȱ suitȱ withȱ aȱ grantȱ ofȱ summaryȱ judgmentȱforȱFDIC.ȱ IIȱ RLIȱoffersȱfiveȱreasonsȱwhy,ȱinȱitsȱview,ȱtheȱbondȱitȱissuedȱ toȱPNBȱdoesȱnotȱcoverȱFDIC’sȱloss.ȱWeȱwillȱaddressȱeachȱinȱ turn.ȱ Aȱ TheȱbondȱcoversȱlossesȱresultingȱdirectlyȱfromȱPNB’sȱreliȬ anceȱ onȱ aȱ documentȱ thatȱ bearsȱ aȱ forgedȱ signature.ȱ Itȱ givesȱ severalȱexamplesȱofȱdocumentsȱthatȱqualifyȱforȱcoverage,ȱinȬ cludingȱ securityȱ agreements,ȱ whichȱ asȱ weȱ haveȱ notedȱ mustȱ beȱ inȱ writingȱ andȱ mustȱ createȱ “anȱ interest”ȱ inȱ propertyȱ toȱ secureȱ paymentȱ orȱ performanceȱ ofȱ anȱ obligation.ȱ RLIȱ conȬ No.ȱ14Ȭ2736ȱ 7 tendsȱthatȱtheȱleaseȱschedulesȱatȱissueȱinȱthisȱcaseȱdoȱnotȱfitȱ thatȱ descriptionȱ andȱ thusȱ doȱ notȱ warrantȱ RLI’sȱ coverageȱ ofȱ FDIC’sȱ losses.ȱ (Noȱ oneȱ assertsȱ thatȱ theȱ leaseȱ schedulesȱ areȱ properlyȱclassifiedȱasȱanyȱofȱtheȱotherȱdocumentsȱqualifyingȱ forȱcoverageȱunderȱtheȱbond.)ȱ AsȱRLIȱseesȱit,ȱtheȱleaseȱschedulesȱdidȱnotȱcreateȱanȱinterȬ estȱinȱanyȱproperty.ȱInstead,ȱtheyȱmerelyȱreflectedȱSysix’sȱexȬ istingȱinterestȱinȱtheȱcomputerȱequipmentȱandȱmemorializedȱ Moody’sȱobligationȱtoȱmakeȱpayments.ȱ Moodyȱ hadȱ noȱ obliȬ gationȱtoȱbuyȱtheȱequipment,ȱRLIȱ says,ȱandȱ thusȱtheȱschedȬ ulesȱcouldȱnotȱconveyȱtitleȱtoȱanyone.ȱTheȱproblemȱwithȱthisȱ argumentȱisȱthatȱtheȱbondȱdoesȱnotȱspecifyȱwhatȱsortȱofȱ“inȬ terest”ȱhadȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱretainedȱinȱtheȱpropertyȱinȱorderȱforȱ theȱ leaseȱ toȱ qualifyȱ asȱ aȱ securityȱ agreement.ȱ Theȱ wordȱ “inȬ terest”ȱdoesȱnot,ȱcontraryȱtoȱRLI’sȱassumption,ȱdescribeȱonlyȱ anȱ ownershipȱ interest.ȱ Theȱ leaseȱ schedulesȱ hereȱ conveyedȱ somethingȱ lessȱ thanȱ fullȱ ownership:ȱ aȱ possessoryȱ interestȱ inȱ theȱ computerȱ equipmentȱ thatȱ Sysixȱ wasȱ supposedlyȱ leasingȱ toȱ Moody.ȱ Inȱ keepingȱ withȱ thatȱ conveyance,ȱ theȱ schedulesȱ anticipateȱMoody’sȱtakingȱpossessionȱofȱtheȱlistedȱcomputerȱ equipment.ȱ PNBȱ reasonablyȱ viewedȱ thisȱ languageȱ asȱ creatȬ ingȱanȱenforceableȱinterestȱforȱMoodyȱinȱtheȱlistedȱproperty.ȱ Theȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱbondȱrequiresȱnothingȱmore.ȱ RLIȱpushesȱbackȱwithȱseveralȱcasesȱthatȱconsiderȱwhetherȱ certainȱdocumentsȱcouldȱbeȱconsideredȱsecurityȱagreementsȱ forȱpurposesȱofȱtheȱUniformȱCommercialȱCode.ȱSectionȱ9Ȭ102ȱ ofȱ theȱ UCCȱ definesȱ “securityȱ agreement”ȱ asȱ “anȱ agreementȱ thatȱ createsȱ orȱ providesȱ forȱ aȱ securityȱ interest”—thatȱ is,ȱ anȱ interestȱsufficientȱtoȱpermitȱtheȱsecuredȱpartyȱtoȱlookȱtoȱthatȱ propertyȱ forȱ repayment.ȱ Theȱ ideaȱ isȱ similarȱ toȱ theȱ oneȱ reȬ flectedȱinȱtheȱbond,ȱbutȱRLIȱhasȱprovidedȱnoȱreasonȱwhyȱtheȱ 8ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ2736ȱ UCCȱtakenȱasȱaȱwholeȱshouldȱdictateȱtheȱresultȱhere.ȱAsȱtheȱ districtȱcourtȱnoted,ȱtheȱbondȱandȱtheȱUCCȱemployȱtheȱtermsȱ “lease”ȱ andȱ “securityȱ agreement”ȱ forȱ differentȱ reasonsȱ andȱ inȱdifferentȱcontexts.ȱWeȱneedȱnotȱwadeȱintoȱtheȱdiscussionsȱ about,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ theȱ differencesȱ forȱ UCCȱ purposesȱ beȬ tweenȱ trueȱ leasesȱ andȱ installmentȱ salesȱ contracts.ȱ Theȱ plainȱ languageȱ ofȱ theȱ bondȱ requiresȱ onlyȱ thatȱ “anȱ interest”ȱ inȱ propertyȱbeȱconveyedȱthroughȱaȱdocumentȱinȱorderȱforȱitȱtoȱ beȱ aȱ securityȱ agreement.ȱ Nothingȱ inȱ theȱ UCCȱ underminesȱ thatȱlanguage.ȱȱ RLIȱalsoȱarguesȱbrieflyȱthatȱPNBȱdidȱnotȱ“treat”ȱtheȱleaseȱ schedulesȱasȱsecurityȱagreements,ȱbutȱitȱfailsȱtoȱexplainȱwhyȱ thatȱ isȱ relevantȱ toȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ theȱ bond.ȱ Weȱ agreeȱ withȱ FDICȱthatȱtheȱinterestȱconveyedȱinȱtheȱleaseȱschedulesȱisȱsufȬ ficientȱ toȱ treatȱ thoseȱ leaseȱ schedulesȱ asȱ securityȱ agreementsȱ underȱtheȱbondȱandȱthusȱasȱsomethingȱthatȱentitlesȱFDICȱtoȱ indemnificationȱcoverageȱforȱitsȱlosses.ȱ Bȱ RLIȱalsoȱarguesȱthatȱFDICȱhasȱnotȱshownȱthatȱitsȱlossȱreȬ sultedȱdirectlyȱfromȱaȱforgery.ȱIfȱthatȱwereȱtrue,ȱitȱwouldȱbeȱaȱ problem,ȱbecauseȱtheȱbondȱrequiresȱ(asȱRLIȱputsȱit)ȱ“aȱdirectȱ nexusȱ betweenȱ theȱ forgeryȱ andȱ theȱ loss”ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ triggerȱ coverage.ȱMoreȱprecisely,ȱtheȱbondȱpromisesȱindemnificationȱ forȱ “[l]ossȱ resultingȱ directlyȱ fromȱ theȱ Insuredȱ having,ȱ inȱ goodȱfaith,ȱ…ȱassumedȱliability,ȱonȱtheȱfaithȱof,ȱanyȱWritten,ȱ Originalȱ…ȱSecurityȱAgreement,ȱwhichȱ…ȱbearsȱaȱhandwritȬ tenȱ signatureȱ …ȱ whichȱ isȱ aȱ forgery.”ȱ RLIȱ contendsȱ thatȱ theȱ forgedȱ signaturesȱ onȱ theȱ leaseȱ schedulesȱ didȱ notȱ directlyȱ causeȱ PNB’sȱ loss,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ computerȱ equipmentȱ deȬ scribedȱ inȱ eachȱ scheduleȱ didȱ notȱ exist,ȱ andȱ soȱ thereȱ wasȱ nothingȱforȱSysixȱtoȱleaseȱtoȱMoodyȱinȱtheȱfirstȱplace.ȱThereȬ No.ȱ14Ȭ2736ȱ 9 fore,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ theȱ signatureȱ hadȱ beenȱ genuine,ȱ RLIȱ says,ȱ theȱ underlyingȱ “collateral”ȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ worthless.ȱ Itȱ conȬ cludesȱthatȱinȱthisȱsituationȱtheȱrealȱsourceȱofȱtheȱlossȱwouldȱ beȱworthlessȱcollateral,ȱnotȱforgery,ȱandȱthusȱtheȱlossȱwouldȱ notȱbeȱcoveredȱbyȱtheȱbond.ȱȱ RLI’sȱreadingȱofȱtheȱbondȱoverlooksȱaȱcriticalȱdetail.ȱTheȱ bondȱ doesȱ notȱ sayȱ thatȱ theȱ lossȱ mustȱ haveȱ resultedȱ directlyȱ fromȱ aȱ forgery;ȱ itȱ saysȱ thatȱ theȱ lossȱ mustȱ haveȱ resultedȱ diȬ rectlyȱfromȱrelianceȱuponȱaȱsecurityȱagreementȱthatȱcontainedȱ aȱ forgery.ȱ Contraryȱ toȱ RLI’sȱ contention,ȱ theȱ bondȱ doesȱ notȱ requireȱ FDICȱ toȱ showȱ thatȱ theȱ forgedȱ signatureȱ byȱ itselfȱ harmedȱPNB’sȱabilityȱtoȱrecoupȱitsȱloss.ȱIfȱPNBȱreliedȱinȱgoodȱ faithȱ onȱ theȱ leaseȱ schedulesȱ toȱ disburseȱ fundsȱ toȱ Rockwell,ȱ andȱtheȱleaseȱschedulesȱcontainedȱbothȱtheȱforgedȱsignaturesȱ andȱtheȱlistsȱofȱfictitiousȱequipment,ȱFDICȱcanȱshowȱthatȱitsȱ lossȱsatisfiesȱtheȱtermsȱofȱtheȱbond.ȱȱ Relyingȱ primarilyȱ onȱ districtȱ courtȱ andȱ someȱ unȬ publishedȱ casesȱ fromȱ outsideȱ thisȱ circuit,ȱ RLIȱ urgesȱ usȱ toȱ findȱ anȱ exceptionȱ forȱ coverageȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ “fictitiousȬ collateral”ȱ doctrine.ȱ Theseȱ casesȱ takeȱ theȱ positionȱ thatȱ RLIȱ advances,ȱ namely,ȱthatȱaȱbank’sȱlossȱforȱpurposesȱofȱaȱ bondȱ suchȱasȱthisȱmustȱflowȱfromȱtheȱforgeryȱitself.ȱThatȱconditionȱ cannotȱ beȱ metȱ ifȱ theȱ underlyingȱ collateralȱ isȱ worthlessȱ orȱ nonȬexistent.ȱ Thisȱ court,ȱ however,ȱ hasȱ expressedȱ doubtȱ aboutȱ aȱ “fictitiousȬcollateralȱ doctrine,”ȱ albeitȱ inȱ aȱ caseȱ dealȬ ingȱwithȱslightlyȱdifferentȱbondȱlanguageȱfromȱthatȱatȱissueȱ here.ȱ Seeȱ Firstȱ Nat’lȱ Bankȱ ofȱ Manitowocȱ v.ȱ Cincinnatiȱ Ins.ȱ Co.,ȱ 485ȱF.3dȱ 971,ȱ 980ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 2007)ȱ (rejectingȱ asȱ “scantilyȱ reaȬ soned”ȱ aȱ stateȱ courtȱ caseȱ concludingȱ thatȱ bondȱ languageȱ “doesȱnotȱcoverȱlossesȱresultingȱfromȱtheȱnonexistenceȱofȱasȬ setsȱassignedȱbyȱaȱforgedȱinstrument”).ȱRLIȱalsoȱurgesȱusȱtoȱ 10ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ2736ȱ adoptȱ aȱ “stringent”ȱ lossȬcausationȱ standardȱ differentȱ fromȱ theȱoneȱdiscussedȱinȱFirstȱNationalȱBankȱofȱManitowoc.ȱȱ Ourȱ primaryȱ reasonȱ forȱ rejectingȱ RLI’sȱ argumentȱ isȱ straightforward:ȱweȱareȱboundȱbyȱtheȱplainȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱ bond,ȱandȱthisȱbondȱdoesȱnotȱmakeȱcoverageȱdependentȱonȱ theȱ qualityȱ ofȱ theȱ collateral.ȱ Itȱ requiresȱ onlyȱ aȱ documentȱ bearingȱ aȱ forgedȱ signature,ȱ andȱ goodȬfaithȱ relianceȱ onȱ thatȱ documentȱ thatȱ causedȱ theȱ bank’sȱ loss.ȱ Forȱ similarȱ reasons,ȱ RLI’sȱargumentȱaboutȱlossȱcausationȱisȱmisplaced.ȱȱ Furthermore,ȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱofferedȱanȱadditionalȱreaȬ son,ȱ toȱ whichȱ RLIȱ hasȱ notȱ adequatelyȱ responded,ȱ forȱ itsȱ reȬ fusalȱtoȱacceptȱRLI’sȱfictitiousȬcollateralȱargument.ȱTheȱcourtȱ observedȱ thatȱ theȱ leaseȱ schedulesȱ wereȱ moreȱ thanȱ aȱ simpleȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ (fictitious)ȱ collateral;ȱ theyȱ wereȱ themselvesȱ collateralȱ thatȱ inducedȱ theȱ transactionsȱ betweenȱ PNBȱ andȱ Rockwell.ȱ Theȱ districtȱ court’sȱ rationaleȱ reflectsȱ theȱ wayȱ thatȱ transactionsȱ likeȱ thisȱ oneȱ actuallyȱ operate:ȱ theȱ signedȱ docuȬ mentȱitselfȱservesȱasȱtheȱbasisȱforȱtheȱtransaction.ȱTheȱsameȱisȱ true,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ inȱ futuresȱ markets,ȱ whereȱ contractsȱ forȱ commodities,ȱnotȱtheȱunderlyingȱcommodities,ȱareȱtheȱitemsȱ ofȱ value.ȱAsȱ theȱ districtȱ courtȱ did,ȱ weȱ concludeȱ thatȱ FDIC’sȱ lossȱ resultedȱ directlyȱ fromȱ PNB’sȱ relianceȱ onȱ theȱ leaseȱ schedules,ȱ eachȱ ofȱ whichȱ containedȱ aȱ forgeryȱ andȱ eachȱ ofȱ whichȱwasȱinȱitselfȱanȱitemȱofȱvalueȱtoȱtheȱbank.ȱ Cȱ Relianceȱ isȱ theȱ nextȱ issueȱ weȱ mustȱ consider.ȱ RLIȱ arguesȱ thatȱ PNBȱ didȱ notȱ “extend[ȱ]ȱ creditȱ orȱ assume[ȱ]ȱ liability,ȱ onȱ theȱfaithȱof”ȱtheȱleaseȱschedules,ȱasȱtheȱbondȱrequires.ȱInȱreȬ ality,ȱRLIȱcontinues,ȱPNBȱapprovedȱRockwell’sȱloanȱapplicaȬ tionsȱ beforeȱ itȱeverȱsawȱtheȱleaseȱ schedules,ȱandȱthereȱisȱnoȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ2736ȱ 11 evidenceȱthatȱanyoneȱatȱPNBȱwhoȱapprovedȱtheȱloansȱmadeȱ anyȱ decisionsȱ basedȱ uponȱ theirȱ contents.ȱ Thus,ȱ RLIȱ conȬ cludes,ȱ PNBȱ cannotȱ haveȱ extendedȱ creditȱ toȱ Rockwellȱ “onȱ theȱ faithȱ of”ȱ thoseȱ documents,ȱ whichȱ wereȱ theȱ onlyȱ onesȱ withȱforgedȱsignatures.ȱ Inȱthisȱinstance,ȱRLIȱoversimplifies.ȱPNBȱdidȱpossessȱtheȱ leaseȱschedulesȱbeforeȱitȱexecutedȱ(onȱtheȱsameȱday)ȱaȱsecuriȬ tyȱagreementȱwithȱRockwellȱandȱRockwellȱsignedȱaȱpromisȬ soryȱ note.ȱ Bothȱ eventsȱ precededȱ PNB’sȱ disbursementȱ ofȱ fundsȱ toȱ Rockwell.ȱ Thisȱ raisesȱ theȱ question:ȱ atȱ whatȱ pointȱ didȱ PNBȱ actuallyȱ “extend[ȱ]ȱ creditȱ …ȱ onȱ theȱ faithȱ of”ȱ theȱ leaseȱschedules?ȱRLIȱproposesȱthatȱtheȱoperativeȱdecisionȱonȱ PNB’sȱpartȱwasȱtheȱmomentȱatȱwhichȱitȱgaveȱpreliminaryȱapȬ provalȱ toȱ theȱ loansȱ forȱ Rockwell.ȱ Thatȱ makesȱ littleȱ sense,ȱ however,ȱ givenȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ moreȱ neededȱ toȱ happenȱ beforeȱ moneyȱ changedȱ hands.ȱ Onlyȱ afterȱ PNBȱ tookȱ thoseȱ otherȱ stepsȱdidȱitȱfinallyȱdisburseȱtheȱfunds.ȱȱ Theȱ loanȱ presentationsȱ thatȱ precededȱ eachȱ ofȱ PNB’sȱ twoȱ loansȱ toȱ Rockwellȱ areȱ inȱ theȱ record,ȱ alongȱ withȱ theȱ otherȱ documentsȱ weȱ discussȱ here.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ presentationȱ isȱ datedȱ Marchȱ 7,ȱ 2008.ȱ Itȱ precededȱ theȱ executionȱ ofȱ Leaseȱ Scheduleȱ S080ȱbyȱaboutȱtwoȱweeksȱandȱshowsȱthatȱRockwellȱrequestȬ edȱ$3,100,000.ȱScheduleȱS080ȱitself,ȱpurportedlyȱexecutedȱonȱ Marchȱ 20,ȱ bearsȱ theȱ figureȱ ofȱ $2,977,135.49ȱ asȱ theȱ originalȱ equipmentȱ cost,ȱ andȱ showsȱ aȱ monthlyȱ rentȱ ofȱ $72,691.73.ȱ Eightȱdaysȱlater,ȱRockwellȱexecutedȱaȱpromissoryȱnoteȱforȱaȱ totalȱ amountȱ ofȱ $2,978,334.28,ȱ withȱ monthlyȱ installmentsȱ ofȱ $72,691.73ȱ (preciselyȱ whatȱ Scheduleȱ S080ȱ calledȱ for).ȱ Theȱ sameȱ day,ȱ PNBȱ executedȱ anȱ assignmentȱ andȱ securityȱ agreeȬ mentȱ regardingȱ PNB’sȱ loanȱ toȱ Rockwell.ȱ Theȱ agreementȱ reȬ fersȱ toȱ Scheduleȱ S080ȱ byȱ itsȱ dateȱ andȱ nameȱ asȱ theȱ “relatedȱ 12ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ2736ȱ contract”ȱ andȱ reflectsȱ theȱ sameȱ $2,978,334.28ȱ amount,ȱ overȱ $120,000ȱlessȱthanȱtheȱamountȱproposedȱinȱtheȱloanȱpresentaȬ tion.ȱ PNB’sȱ secondȱ loanȱ toȱ Rockwellȱ inȱ Decemberȱ 2008ȱ folȬ lowedȱtheȱsameȱpattern.ȱTheȱinitialȱloanȱpresentationȱonȱDeȬ cemberȱ 10,ȱ 2008,ȱ indicatedȱ thatȱ PNBȱ wouldȱ loanȱ $1,120,000ȱ toȱRockwell.ȱLeaseȱScheduleȱS084,ȱexecutedȱonȱDecemberȱ15ȱ andȱ16,ȱwasȱcloseȱbutȱnotȱidentical:ȱitȱreflectedȱanȱequipmentȱ purchaseȱ priceȱ ofȱ $1,111,024,ȱ withȱ aȱ monthlyȱ rentȱ ofȱ $32,410.51.ȱRockwell’sȱDecemberȱ22ȱpromissoryȱnoteȱincludȬ edȱaȱmonthlyȱpaymentȱamountȱofȱ$32,410.51,ȱandȱtheȱsecuriȬ tyȱagreementȱitȱsignedȱwithȱPNBȱthatȱsameȱdayȱmadeȱspecifȬ icȱreferenceȱtoȱScheduleȱS084.ȱ(TheȱtotalȱamountȱforȱtheȱsecȬ ondȱ loanȱ wasȱ $1,131,989.75;ȱ neitherȱ partyȱ explainsȱ whyȱ itȱ wasȱhigherȱthanȱbothȱtheȱloanȱpresentationȱandȱtheȱamountȱ onȱScheduleȱS084.)ȱ TheseȱdocumentsȱsupportȱtheȱconclusionȱthatȱtheȱoperaȬ tiveȱ momentȱ wasȱ whenȱ PNBȱ actuallyȱ disbursedȱ theȱ money,ȱ notȱ whenȱ itȱ initiallyȱ approvedȱ theȱ loans—inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ whenȱ theȱ moneyȱ wentȱ outȱ theȱ door.ȱ Thatȱ momentȱ didȱ notȱ arriveȱ untilȱ PNBȱ hadȱ inȱ itsȱ possessionȱ theȱ twoȱ leaseȱ schedȬ ulesȱthatȱcontainedȱtheȱforgedȱsignatures.ȱThereȱisȱlittleȱquesȬ tionȱ thatȱ PNBȱ consultedȱ thoseȱ schedulesȱ beforeȱ comingȱ toȱ finalȱagreementȱwithȱRockwell,ȱgivenȱtheȱspecificȱreferencesȱ toȱtheȱleaseȱschedulesȱandȱtheȱagreements’ȱuseȱofȱtheȱpreciseȱ monthlyȱ rentalȱ amountsȱ fromȱ theȱ schedules.ȱ RLIȱ contendsȱ thatȱ aȱ reasonableȱ jurorȱ couldȱ findȱ thatȱ PNBȱ didȱ notȱ relyȱ onȱ theȱ leaseȱ schedules,ȱ butȱ weȱ cannotȱ seeȱ howȱ onȱ thisȱ record.ȱ Theȱ onlyȱ plausibleȱ conclusionȱ isȱ thatȱ PNBȱ ultimatelyȱ “exȬ tendedȱcreditȱ…ȱonȱtheȱfaithȱof”ȱdocumentsȱbearingȱforgerȬ iesȱ(theȱleaseȱschedules).ȱ ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ2736ȱ 13 FDICȱ alsoȱ pointsȱ toȱ testimonyȱ fromȱ PNB’sȱ seniorȱ viceȱ president,ȱ Richardȱ Dunbar,ȱ asȱ evidenceȱ thatȱ PNBȱ reliedȱ onȱ theȱ leaseȱ schedules.ȱ Dunbarȱ testifiedȱ inȱ aȱ depositionȱ thatȱ PNBȱ“hadȱtheȱoriginalȱofȱ[theȱleaseȱschedules]ȱpriorȱtoȱfundȬ ingȱ theseȱ loanȱ transactions,”ȱ becauseȱ PNBȱ “alwaysȱ reȬ quire[d]ȱ thoseȱ originals,”ȱ andȱ thatȱ PNBȱ “rel[ied]ȱ inȱ goodȱ faith”ȱ onȱ theȱ leaseȱ schedulesȱ whenȱ makingȱ itsȱ loansȱ toȱ Rockwell.ȱ RLIȱ disparagesȱ thisȱ testimony,ȱ pointingȱ outȱ thatȱ peopleȱ otherȱ thanȱ Dunbarȱ approvedȱ theȱ loansȱ atȱ theȱ loanȱ presentationȱ stage.ȱ Thisȱ suggests,ȱ RLIȱ argues,ȱ thatȱ Dunbarȱ lackedȱ personalȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ theȱ decisionsȱ toȱ makeȱ theȱ loans.ȱ Butȱ Dunbarȱ wasȱPNB’sȱsignatoryȱ toȱtheȱfinalȱsecurityȱ agreementsȱ andȱ assignmentsȱ betweenȱ Rockwellȱ andȱ PNB.ȱ Thoseȱ documentsȱ reflectedȱ theȱ monthlyȱ amountsȱ fromȱ theȱ leaseȱ schedulesȱ andȱ referredȱ toȱ theȱ schedulesȱ byȱ dateȱ andȱ name.ȱThatȱisȱenoughȱtoȱshowȱthatȱDunbarȱplayedȱsomeȱroleȱ inȱtheȱdisbursementȱofȱtheȱfundsȱtoȱRockwell.ȱȱ Inȱ sum,ȱ RLIȱ hasȱ notȱ pointedȱ toȱ enoughȱ toȱ permitȱ aȱ reaȬ sonableȱ juryȱ toȱ findȱ thatȱ PNBȱ didȱ notȱ provideȱ loansȱ toȱ RockwellȱonȱtheȱfaithȱofȱdocumentsȱcontainingȱforgedȱsignaȬ tures.ȱToȱtheȱcontrary,ȱtheȱundisputedȱmaterialȱfactsȱdemonȬ strateȱthatȱPNBȱpossessedȱandȱreviewedȱtheȱleaseȱschedulesȱ asȱ itȱ cameȱ toȱ aȱ finalȱ arrangementȱ withȱ Rockwell,ȱ andȱ itȱ exȬ plicitlyȱ referredȱ toȱ theȱ schedulesȱ andȱ incorporatedȱ theirȱ monthlyȱpaymentȱtermsȱinȱtheȱfinalȱloanȱdocuments.ȱȱ Dȱ RLI’sȱ nextȱ argumentȱ isȱ thatȱ FDICȱ failedȱ toȱ complyȱ withȱ theȱrequirementȱinȱtheȱbondȱrequiringȱitȱtoȱhaveȱactualȱphysȬ icalȱpossessionȱofȱtheȱforgedȱdocument.ȱRLIȱinterpretsȱthisȱtoȱ meanȱactualȱpossessionȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱ2001ȱmasterȱlease.ȱItȱisȱ undisputedȱthatȱFDICȱneverȱpossessedȱthatȱdocument.ȱErgo,ȱ 14ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ2736ȱ RLIȱsays,ȱFDICȱcannotȱshowȱthatȱitȱassumedȱliabilityȱ“onȱtheȱ faithȱ ofȱ …ȱ anyȱ Written,ȱ Original”ȱ securityȱ agreementȱ conȬ tainingȱaȱsignatureȱ“whichȱisȱaȱForgery,”ȱwhereȱ“Original”ȱisȱ definedȱasȱ“theȱfirstȱrenderingȱorȱarchetype.”ȱ RLIȱ isȱ againȱ notȱ takingȱ theȱ bond’sȱ languageȱ inȱ context.ȱ Theȱ bondȱ doesȱ notȱ requireȱ theȱ insuredȱ partyȱ toȱ possessȱ theȱ originalȱ ofȱ everyȱ documentȱ associatedȱ withȱ aȱ transaction,ȱ includingȱaȱmasterȱloanȱdocumentȱthatȱprecededȱanȱindividȬ ualȱ leaseȱ agreement.ȱ Weȱ canȱ assumeȱ thatȱ theȱ masterȱ leaseȱ beganȱ theȱ businessȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ Moodyȱ andȱ Sysix,ȱ butȱeachȱleaseȱscheduleȱrepresentsȱaȱstandaloneȱtransaction,ȱ eachȱwithȱitsȱownȱexecutionȱdateȱandȱfinancing.ȱItȱisȱundisȬ putedȱ thatȱ FDICȱ possessesȱ theȱ originalȱ ofȱ eachȱ leaseȱ schedȬ ule.ȱAsȱ weȱ alreadyȱ haveȱ discussed,ȱ eachȱ leaseȱ scheduleȱ isȱ aȱ securityȱ agreementȱ asȱ definedȱ byȱ theȱ bond,ȱ andȱ eachȱ conȬ tainsȱ aȱ forgeryȱ uponȱ whichȱ PNBȱ (andȱ FDICȱ byȱ extension)ȱ sufficientlyȱ reliedȱ toȱ triggerȱ coverage.ȱ Inȱ short,ȱ FDICȱ posȬ sessesȱ theȱ writtenȱ originalsȱ ofȱ theȱ operativeȱ securityȱ agreeȬ ments—here,ȱtheȱleaseȱschedules.ȱ RLIȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ becauseȱ (asȱ itȱ seesȱ it)ȱ theȱ leaseȱ schedȬ ulesȱ “containȱ noȱ materialȱ terms”ȱ andȱ “areȱ simplyȱ listsȱ ofȱ leasedȱ equipment,”ȱ theyȱ doȱ notȱ qualifyȱ asȱ agreements.ȱ Aȱ lookȱ atȱ theȱ schedules,ȱ however,ȱ showsȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ soȱ limited.ȱ Inȱ particular,ȱ theȱ firstȱ pageȱ ofȱ eachȱ scheduleȱ proȬ videsȱtheȱmaterialȱterms:ȱtheȱminimumȱtermȱofȱtheȱlease,ȱtheȱ commencementȱ date,ȱ theȱ monthlyȱ rent,ȱ theȱ maximumȱ purȬ chaseȱ priceȱ ofȱ theȱ leasedȱ equipment,ȱ andȱ anȱ automaticȱ reȬ newalȱprovisionȱinȱtheȱeventȱthatȱtheȱlesseeȱfailsȱtoȱreturnȱtheȱ equipmentȱuponȱterminationȱofȱtheȱlease.ȱAlthoughȱtheȱleasȬ esȱ alsoȱ incorporateȱ theȱ masterȱ leaseȱ byȱ reference,ȱ RLIȱ conȬ tendsȱ thatȱ thisȱ mustȱ beȱ disregardedȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ “antiȬ No.ȱ14Ȭ2736ȱ 15 bundling”ȱ provisionȱ withinȱ theȱ bond.ȱ Weȱ needȱ notȱ addressȱ thisȱ argumentȱ becauseȱ inȱ ourȱ viewȱ theȱ incorporationȱ ofȱ theȱ masterȱ leaseȱ doesȱ notȱ changeȱ anything,ȱ givenȱ theȱ leaseȱ schedules’ȱ statusȱ asȱ theȱ operativeȱ forgeryȬbearingȱ securityȱ agreementsȱinȱthisȱcase.ȱ Eȱ Finally,ȱ RLIȱ contendsȱ thatȱ FDIC’sȱ claimȱ fallsȱ outsideȱ theȱ bond’sȱcontractualȱstatuteȱofȱlimitations.ȱPNBȱdiscoveredȱitsȱ lossȱinȱSeptemberȱ2009,ȱyetȱFDICȱdidȱnotȱfileȱsuitȱagainstȱRLIȱ untilȱ Mayȱ 2012.ȱ Theȱ bondȱ containsȱ aȱ provisionȱ imposingȱ aȱ 24Ȭmonthȱlimitȱonȱtheȱinitiationȱofȱlitigation,ȱmeasuredȱfromȱ theȱ dateȱ ofȱ discoveryȱ ofȱ theȱ insured’sȱ loss;ȱ RLIȱ arguesȱ thatȱ thisȱcontrols.ȱWeȱcanȱdispenseȱwithȱthisȱargumentȱeasily.ȱTheȱ FinancialȱInstitutionsȱReformȱRecoveryȱandȱEnforcementȱActȱ (FIRREA),ȱ enactedȱ inȱ 1989ȱ (longȱ beforeȱ theseȱ transactions),ȱ saysȱthatȱ“[n]otwithstandingȱanyȱprovisionȱofȱanyȱcontract,”ȱ theȱ statuteȱ ofȱ limitationsȱ forȱ anyȱ contractȱ claimȱ broughtȱ byȱ FDICȱisȱtheȱlongerȱofȱsixȱyearsȱorȱtheȱapplicableȱstateȱstatuteȱ ofȱ limitations.ȱ 12ȱ U.S.C.ȱ §ȱ1821(d)(14);ȱ Pub.ȱ L.ȱ No.ȱ 101Ȭ73,ȱ §ȱ212ȱ (1989).ȱ Theȱ presentȱ caseȱ involvesȱ aȱ contractȱ claimȱ broughtȱ byȱ FDICȱ inȱ itsȱ capacityȱ asȱ receiver.ȱ RLIȱ concedesȱ thatȱifȱtheȱFIRREAȱperiodȱapplies,ȱthisȱsuitȱwasȱtimely.ȱ RLIȱfightsȱthisȱoutcomeȱwithȱaȱconvolutedȱargumentȱthatȱ startsȱ withȱ theȱ propositionȱ thatȱ theȱ 24Ȭmonthȱ limitationȱ onȱ suitsȱinȱtheȱbondȱisȱnotȱanalogousȱtoȱaȱstatuteȱofȱlimitations.ȱ Ifȱ thatȱ isȱ so,ȱ thenȱ (RLIȱ contends),ȱ theȱ periodȱ inȱ theȱ bondȱ overridesȱ FIRREA’sȱ sixȬyearȱ (orȱ greater)ȱ allowanceȱ forȱ thisȱ kindȱ ofȱ suitȱ byȱ FDICȱ becauseȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ contractualȱ provision,ȱ andȱcontractualȱprovisionsȱareȱfavoredȱbyȱIllinoisȱlawȱwhenȱ contraryȱ toȱ statutesȱ ofȱ limitations.ȱ Itsȱ argument,ȱ however,ȱ utterlyȱ ignoresȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ FIRREA’sȱ periodȱ appliesȱ 16ȱ No.ȱ14Ȭ2736ȱ “[n]otwithstandingȱanyȱprovisionȱofȱanyȱcontract.”ȱTheȱstatȬ utoryȱlanguageȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱclearer.ȱCongressȱprovidedȱthatȱ FIRREAȱ wouldȱ overrideȱ shorterȱ contractualȱ timeȱ limits,ȱ notȱ theȱotherȱwayȱaround.ȱ RLI’sȱ onlyȱ responseȱ isȱ toȱ argueȱ thatȱ theȱ languageȱ inȱ FIRREAȱ isȱ merelyȱ aȱ choiceȬofȬlawȱ provision,ȱ notȱ theȱ firmȱ commandȱweȱperceiveȱitȱtoȱbe.ȱRLIȱdoesȱnotȱexplainȱthisȱarȬ gumentȱasideȱfromȱaȱcitationȱtoȱourȱdecisionȱinȱFDICȱv.ȱWaȬ bick,ȱ 335ȱ F.3dȱ 620ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 2003),ȱ whichȱ doesȱ notȱ dealȱ withȱ theȱ “notwithstanding”ȱ language.ȱ Wabickȱ addressedȱ theȱ lanȬ guageȱ inȱ FIRREAȱ instructingȱ courtsȱ toȱ useȱ “theȱ longerȱ of”ȱ eitherȱ sixȱ yearsȱ orȱ theȱ applicableȱ stateȱ statuteȱ ofȱ limitationsȱ (whichȱwasȱ10ȱyearsȱinȱIllinois).ȱTheȱstatutoryȱlanguageȱhereȱ unequivocallyȱinstructsȱcourtsȱtoȱsetȱasideȱ“anyȱprovisionȱofȱ anyȱ contract.”ȱ RLIȱ alsoȱ pointsȱ toȱ CTSȱ Corp.ȱ v.ȱ Waldburger,ȱ 134ȱS.ȱ Ct.ȱ 2175ȱ (2014),ȱ statingȱ thatȱ theȱ Supremeȱ Courtȱ “reȬ centlyȱaddressedȱthisȱissue”ȱinȱthatȱcase.ȱTheȱissueȱtoȱwhichȱ RLIȱ refers,ȱ however,ȱ isȱ justȱ theȱ generalȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ statutesȱ ofȱ limitationȱ andȱ statutesȱ ofȱ repose.ȱ Waldburgerȱ exȬ aminedȱanȱenvironmentalȱstatute,ȱnotȱFIRREA.ȱTheȱquestionȱ wasȱ whetherȱ thatȱ statuteȱ preemptedȱ onlyȱ statutesȱ ofȱlimitaȬ tions,ȱorȱalsoȱstatutesȱofȱrepose.ȱNothingȱinȱWaldburgerȱcastsȱ anyȱdoubtȱonȱourȱreadingȱofȱFIRREA.ȱȱ IIIȱ Theȱ bondȱ thatȱ RLIȱ issuedȱ toȱ PNBȱ coversȱ theȱ lossȱ thatȱ PNBȱ (andȱ thusȱ FDICȱ asȱ receiver)ȱ sufferedȱ inȱ thisȱ case.ȱ BeȬ causeȱ FIRREAȱ specificallyȱ overridesȱ conflictingȱ contractualȱ periodsȱforȱbringingȱsuit,ȱandȱFDICȱsuedȱwithinȱtheȱstatutoȬ ryȱ time,ȱ itsȱ claimȱ wasȱ notȱ subjectȱ toȱ dismissalȱ asȱ untimely.ȱ WeȱthereforeȱAFFIRMȱtheȱjudgmentȱofȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱinȱfaȬ vorȱofȱFDIC.ȱ