Produc not. Prior to FIRREA, courts adopted a so-called “provability test” in order to determine the types of claims available against the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for a failed bank. Under the common law test, a claim was deemed provable if: (1) it existed before the bank’s insolvency and did not depend on any new contractual obligations arising thereafter; (2) liability on the claim was absolute and certain in amount when suit was filed; and (3) the claim was made in a timely manner. See Dababneh v. FDIC, 971 F.2d 428, 434 (10th Cir.1992); First Empire Bank-New York v. FDIC, 572 F.2d 1361, 1367-69 (9th Cir.1978). The first prong of the provability test requires that the claim must arise from a contract in existence prior to insolvency. See, e.g., McMillian, 81 F.3d at 1047 (<HOLDING>); accord First Empire, 572 F.2d at 1367
holding that an attorney approval clause in a contract for the sale of real estate was a part of that contract and would have to be satisfied for the underlying contract to be enforceable holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee holding that provability rule was satisfied in case of employee severance contract that existed before banks insolvency holding that severance pay policy was part of employment contract holding that any constitutionally protected property interest an employee has as a result of his employment contract is satisfied by payment of the full compensation due under the contract