In sum, the CRP was dependent upon a series of unlikely events, including predictions
that the agency would be inclined to relax its position on the “meet and maintain” requirements
even though it had just stated that it wouldn’t, and that the agency would bless the Legent
transaction that it had just described as troubling. It was not unreasonable for the agency to find
that the Bank’s assumptions – particularly its assumptions about what the agency itself was
likely to do – were unduly optimistic, and it was not unreasonable for it to require confirmation
beyond the Bank’s own say-so about what the investors were or were not willing to do. Since
OTS has presented a reasoned explanation for its determination that the CRP was statutorily
unacceptable, and the Bank has failed to demonstrate that these reasons were arbitrary or
capricious, the Court will uphold the appointment decision based on this statutory ground.12
1