untruthfulness, if these agreements are offered as an explanation for representations or' implied warranties, that the party was fraudulently induced into a debt obligation to a bank taken over by the FDIC as receiver, such promises or representations are “agreements” that cannot “substantially comprise” a claim against the FDIC unless they meet the four-part recording requirement of § 1823(e). In practical terms, this means that fraud in the inducement is not a defense to an action to collect a debt by the FDIC as receiver, and that claims of fraud or conspiracy against the FDIC receiver fail when they are substantially supported by representations or promises that do not meet the four-part requirement of Section 1823(e). See FDIC v. Kratz, 898 F.2d 669, 671 (8th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Section 1823(e) extends to claims made
holding that the language of the arbitration clause   any controversy or claim arising out of     was broad enough to encompass the plaintiffs claim alleging fraud in the inducement of the contract holding that under federal law the party seeking to obviate the forum selection clause must prove that the inclusion of the clause was the result of fraud or coercion  fraud in the inducement as to the entire contract is not enough recognizing fraud in the inducement as defense under federal common law interpreting erisa holding that 12 usc  1823e precludes the defense of fraud in the inducement unless the representation met the recording requirements holding that the filed rate doctrine precludes insureds fraudulent inducement claim