WMA-TA’s IFBs,” and because the duties of good faith and fair dealing and of accurate project description did not “specifically prescribe” that content, the court held that WMATA retained “broad discretion to determine the contents of the tunnel project’s bid package.” Id. at 1160. WMATA was thus immune. The same is true here. The parties agree that WMATA has broad discretion to select appropriate bidders and to negotiate final agreements. Banneker argues only that WMATA lacked the discretion to lead bidders to believe they would receive approval from the Board when, in fact, one of its Board Members was actively working to prevent it. Nothing of which we are aware, however, so limits WMATA’s discretion. See also Greenbelt Ventures LLC v. WMATA 481 Fed.Appx. 833, 839-40 (4th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); Monument Realty LLC v. WMATA 535 F.Supp.2d
recognizing ability of one or more joint tortfeasors to settle on behalf of themselves and another joint tortfeasor and then pursue that joint tortfeasor for its share of the settlement payment holding that ojrdinarily when a regulation is not promulgated in compliance with the apa the regulation is invalid however when equity demands the regulation can be left in place while the agency follows the necessary procedures citation omitted holding that the rights conferred to a joint account holder by massachusetts statutes and case law in fact give a joint account holder legal title in a joint account holding that a regulation prohibiting excavations below groundwater level was not a taking because the regulation only limited some forms of development but did not decrease market value holding no statute regulation or policy governed wmatas course of conduct while negotiating joint development agreement