authority to enforce the Agreement, it is the FDIC rather than the OTS. Section 1818(b)(1) of 12 U.S.C. authorizes “the appropriate Federal banking agency” to enforce any condition imposed “by the agency” or any agreement entered into “with the agency.” The OTS cannot bring this action, according to Rapaport, because it was not “the agency” that entered into the Agreement, which was with the FSLIC (as opposed to the FHLBB, the governing body of the FSLIC). Further, because “all assets and liabilities of the [FSLIC]” were transferred to the FSLIC Resolution Fund, see 12 U.S.C. § 1821a(a)(2)(A), and the FSLIC Resolution Fund is managed by the FDIC, he claims that only the FDIC may proceed against him for any deficiency. See also CityFed Financial Corp. v. OTS, 58 F.3d 738 (D.C.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Not so. Rapaport entered into the Agreement
holding ots has jurisdiction to enforce cease and desist order against holding company affiliated with failed savings and loan holding that the united states may bring suit against a state to enforce compliance with federal law holding that no evidence existed that at time of contract between logger and company that company intended to confer direct benefit on loggers employee sufficient to give employee standing to sue to enforce contract holding that a motion to enforce bankruptcy sale order is a core proceeding and citing 11 usc  105a as the section which gives the bankruptcy court the power and the jurisdiction to enforce its valid orders  holding nonsignatory defendant companies affiliated with signatory defendant company could enforce arbitration agreement against signatory plaintiff when same operative facts were involved