held by the federal instrumentality are “expressly excluded from such sales, and they are made by express terms, subject to all such prior rights, liens and interests.” Id. After New Brunswick, courts have treated an exercise of state power over a mortgage interest held by a federal i t actions by a state constitute a “deprivation,” under § 1825, the touchstone is whether a taxing entity’s action causes a “reduction in the value of the receivership’s assets.” Irving Independent School Dist. v. Packard Properties, 970 F.2d 58, 62 (5th Cir.1992). “Absent some actual devaluation of, or loss of rights in, FDIC ‘property,’ there is no ‘deprivation of property’ and § 1825(b)(2) is not violated ....” First State Bank-Keene v. Metroplex Petroleum, Inc., 155 F.3d 732, 739 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); see also Verspoor, 145 F.3d at 690-91
holding defendants ownership interest in texas company that was not party to lawsuit was not relevant to specific jurisdiction holding that a tax sale did not violate  1825b2 where under texas law the fdics interest was not devalued or extinguished since it had not been made a party to the suit holding that a lien cannot be extinguished through a tax sale without the consent of the fdic holding that a lien holder who is not served and joined as a party to a tax suit cannot have his lien extinguished by the tax sale holding that the fdics agent could assert  1821  to bar a claim for specific performance even when the fdic was not and could not have been a party to the case