$[$Run Around$]$ Hema issues a promissory note to Rahul. Rahul endorses the note and transfers it to Anne. Anne endorses the note and transfers it to Floyd. Floyd presents the note to Hema for payment. When Floyd presents the note to Hema, she asks him for reasonable identification. He did not have any identification with him and told her that she had no right to dishonor the instrument. Hema continued to insist, so finally, on the same day, Rahul obtained clear identification and presented it to her. Nevertheless, even with proper identification, Hema refused to pay the note, claiming that she lacked the funds with which to do so$.$ After properly providing notification of dishonor to both Anne and Rahul, Floyd requested that Anne pay the note, but she told him that he would have to get his money from Rahul. Floyd has been trying to call Rahul for $35$ days, but Rahul did not return his telephone calls. Floyd is exasperated; and within $40$ days of when Hema refuses payment, he notifies Hema, Rahul, and Anne that the promissory note has beeo dishonored by Hema and that he is asserting liability on the note against all of them. Hema calls him up and says that she never dishonored the note, but she simply lacks the funds with which to immediately pay and thinks that he should seek recovery elsewhere.

Which of the following is correct regarding Floyd's entitlement to payment from Hema?

Floyd is not entitled to payment from Hema unless Rahul, in addition to Anne, dishonors the instrument.

Floyd is only entitled to payment from Hema because Anne dishonored the payment

Floyd is entitled to recover on the note from Hema.

Floyd is never entitled payment from Hema since his exclusive recovery remedy is against Anne.

Floyd is entitled to recover on the note from Hema, but only if both Anne and Rahul have filed for bankruptcy or are otherwise proven insolvent.