I don't believe the bankruptcy clawback provisions you're referring to apply here, because this is an FDIC conservatorship/receivership, not a bankruptcy proceeding. I don't fully understand why this particular part of the processes differs, but I'd argue it's that it does unfortunate, as it incentivizes bank runs like this.
There is an extensive comparison of the two processes in [1]. Specifically:
> the Bankruptcy Code provides trustees the authority to avoid, that is, claw-back or reverse, certain transfers (subject to certain limitations52) made by debtors
> the FDIC as conservator or receiver may not avoid (i.e., reverse or claw-back) any property transfer pursuant to a qualified financial contract unless the transfer was performed with the "actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud."