[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-13604 ____________________ FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as receiver for Omni National Bank, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S OF LONDON,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-03127-TCB ____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-13604 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 2 of 18

2 Opinion of the Court 20-13604

Before ROSENBAUM, TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges, and STEELE,* District Judge. TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: This appeal requires us to decide when a plaintiff must de- mand prejudgment interest to be timely under Georgia law. In a prior case, a federal district court decided in a declaratory judgment action that an insurance policy issued by Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (“Underwriters”) covered certain negligent ac- tions undertaken by the former directors and officers of Omni Na- tional Bank (“Omni”) during the 2008 banking crisis. Following this declaration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), acting in Omni’s name as Omni’s receiver, demanded payment and prejudgment interest from Underwriters under the insurance policy for a stipulated judgment previously entered against three of Omni’s former directors and officers for $10 mil- lion, the limit of Underwriters’ insurance policy. Underwriters paid the $10 million once the Supreme Court denied certiorari for its appeal from the declaratory judgment but refused to pay pre- judgment interest, causing the FDIC to institute this action. The District Court ruled that the FDIC’s demand for pre- judgment interest was untimely under Georgia law because the FDIC made its demand after the declaratory judgment was entered * The Honorable John Steele, United States District Judge for the Middle Dis- trict of Florida, sitting by designation. USCA11 Case: 20-13604 Date Filed: 08/19/2022 Page: 3 of 18

20-13604 Opinion of the Court 3 and liability determined. On appeal, the FDIC argues that de- mands for prejudgment interest are timely under Georgia law so long as they are made before the entry of a coercive final judgment, which declaratory judgments are not. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the District Court. I.

In 2007, the United States Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) began investigating the low-income real estate loan practices of Omni, which were found to violate both internal policies and federal regulations.1 After this investigation began, Omni secured a policy with a $10 million liability limit from Un- derwriters to cover its directors and officers for wrongful conduct occurring between June 9, 2008, and June 9, 2009. During that pe- riod, Omni began foreclosing on many of the low-income proper- ties that had been subject to its bad loan practices. However, in- stead of selling these low-income properties to recoup its losses, Omni began investing money to renovate them, even after receiv- ing a CAMELS5 rating from the OCC in September 2008. 2 The

1 The OCC is tasked with implementing the National Bank Act. NationsBank of N.C. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U.S. 251, 256, 115 S. Ct. 810, 813 (1995). As a result, it has broad powers over banks in the United States, in- cluding the ability to appoint a receiver for a regulated national bank. 12 U.S.C. § 191(a). 2 The O