transferability of every asset of an insured bank, at least where necessary to accomplish the assumption of its deposit liabilities by another insured bank,” simply is too broad. For example, it is unlikely that a personal service contract would be assignable. But see NCNB Texas Nat’l Bank, 895 F.2d at 1499-1503 (fiduciary appointments, non-transferable under Texas-law, may be transferred by FDIC-receiver to federally created bridge bank under former 12 U.S.C. § 1821(i)). While tort actions for the malfeasance of bank officers and directors may be assignable as a matter of federal law, there is no requirement that federal law must supply a rule of decision at odds with uniform state law. See United States v. Kimbell Foods, 440 U.S. 715, 728, 99 S.Ct. 1448, 1458, 59 L.Ed.2d 711 (1979) (<HOLDING>); D’Oench, 315 U.S. at 473-74, 62 S.Ct. at
holding that the priority of liens stemming from federal lending programs is a matter of federal common law holding that a national rule is not needed to determine the priority of liens arising from federal lending programs holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding that participation in federal programs and receipt of federal funds under such programs fall far short of manifesting a clear intent  to waive immunity holding that federal programs that require uniform application necessitate formulation of controlling federal rules