1. Whether a State agency, with notice that certain
defrauded investor funds on account at a bank are
subject to 28 U.S.C. § 754's exclusive in rem jurisdiction,
a Federal freeze order, and other orders, can divert
such funds unbeknown st to the Federal equity receiver
relying on the liquidation of those funds to close the
receivership estate.

2. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 959(b) and the principles
of Supreme Court's Midlantic decision apply to a
liquidating Federal equity rece iver, and, if they apply,
can they be stretched to require the receiver's pay ment of the liabilities of a non -receivership operation
whose liabilities arose prior -to the receivership.

3. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 959(b) and Midlantic
should be used to catapult a State agency's regulatory
expense "claim" to super -priority status, even though
the expenses were never claimed or vetted in court,
leaving the Receiver unable to pay the administrative
expenses such as attorney fees.

4. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 959(b) and Midlantic
supersede a District Court's orders to protect the Fed eral equity receiver from such expenses as well as
the District Court's sales orders that eliminate the
subject expenses with the transfer of estate properties.

5. Whether a Federal receiver is entitled to an
opportunity to refute a St ate agency's defenses to
contempt and whether all of a Federal receiver's causes
of actions against a State agency, properly filed and
contained in a "Summary Proceedings Application,"
can be dismissed without hearing or argument.

6. Whether a Federal rece iver pursuing defrauded
investor funds can claim the funds on deposit in support
of letters of credit instead of claiming the letters of
credit themselves.

Whether a State agency can divert defrauded investor funds subject to a federal court's exclusive in rem jurisdiction and freeze order, whether a federal receiver can be required to pay liabilities of a non-receivership entity, whether a federal receiver is entitled to an opportunity to refute a state agency's defenses, and whether a federal receiver can claim funds on deposit in support of letters of credit instead of the letters of credit themselves