not be construed to authorize suits against such federal agency on claims which are cognizable under [the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) ], and the remedies provided by [the FTCA] in such cases shall be exclusive. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(a). “Thus, if a suit is ‘cognizable’ under § 1346(b) of the FTCA, the FTCA remedy is ‘exclusive’ and the federal agency cannot be sued ‘in its own name,’ despite the existence of a sue-and-be-sued clause.” Id. (quoting FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (first alteration in Meyer) (citation omitted from Meyer)). The court further correctly explained that plaintiffs’ suit is “cognizable” under § 1346(b): it is a straightforward state-law tort suit. See id. (citing In re Cedar Vale State Bank, 257 Kan. 497, 894 P.2d 816 (1995) (<HOLDING>)). The court also rejected the argument, which
holding that a bank receiver by filing a claim permits challenge to the secured portion of its claim recognizing claim against bank receiver holding that an africanamerican investment advisor who accompanied two clients into a bank could assert a  51 claim alleging discrimination against the bank even though his clients were the actual customers of the bank recognizing that a bank customer may have a tort claim against a bank for the wrongful dishonor of a check holding successor national bank liable for punitive damages judgment against bank that merged into successor national bank