fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, "an appropriate ad justment for delay in payment-whether by the application of current rather than historic hourly rates or otherwise” is permissible. 491 U.S. 274, 283-84, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989). The Seventh Circuit in Brandt v. Schal Assoc., Inc. upheld a district court’s award of interest on attorney’s fees for the "delay factor” and affirmed the district court’s holding that awarding delay damages does not violate Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. 960 F.2d 640, 645, 649 (7th Cir.1992) (citing 496 U.S. 384, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990)). 171 . The FDIC disputes that it acted as a receiver here. See supra note 158. 172 . See, e.g., Spawn, 989 F.2d at 833 (quoting McGehee v. Panama Canal Comm'n, 872 F.2d 1213, 1215 (5th Cir.1989)) (<HOLDING>); see also Meyer, 510 U.S. at 482, 114 S.Ct.
holding that a government agency may lose its immunity to interest sanctions if  congress has shed the cloak of sovereignty and given an agency the status of a commercial operation  holding that when congress has implicitly delegated legislative authority to an agency a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency holding that a draft of a proposed letter from an area director of a government agency to a municipal administrative agency was properly excluded because it did not represent an agency finding holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address in the first instance holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it