...).
The Supreme Court, in Langley, suggested in dicta that there is a distinction between a defense of "fraud in the inducement," rendering the FDIC's interest "voidable," and a defense of "fraud in the factum," rendering...the FDIC's interest "void." The Supreme Court then held that "voidable title is enough to constitute `title or interest' in the note." Langley, 484 U.S. at 94, 108 S.Ct. at 402-03 (emphasis in original). In so doing, the Supreme Court suggested that a defense of fraud in the factum rendering...defendants argue, no interest ever passed to Citytrust. Because Citytrust had no interest in the notes, defenses to a collection action based upon violation of the federal securities laws are not subject to the requirements of 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e). Appellants' Brief at 17.
We reject this argument. The fraud alleged by the defendants constitutes fraud in the inducement, not fraud in the factum. As...