permitted releases” seems to be a misnomer for a second reason. See supra note 2. 15 . The Court does note that serious doubt exists whether equitable defenses can be maintained against the sovereigns, at least in some circumstances that may be pertinent here. See Phelps v. Federal Emergency Mgt. Agency, 785 F.2d 13 (1st Cir.1986) (denying federally insured plaintiffs insurance benefits because, relying on the representations of federal employees that it was unnecessary, the plaintiffs failed to provide a written proof of loss and refusing to permit the plaintiffs to estop the defendant federal agency, because of its employees’ actions, from raising the plaintiffs’ failure to provide such written proof as a defense); United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc., 758 F.2d 741, 761 (1st Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); United States v. String-fellow, 661 F.Supp.
recognizing the public interest exception recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public holding that the public interest factor was not implicated in a noncompete case because the specific action at issue would not help or harm the public and the public interest factor is generally considered within the confines of disputes involving governmental agencies or programs rather than in the adjudication of private controversies holding that the ultimate question is whether the employees right to speak is outweighed by the public employers interest in the effective operation of the workplace holding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply fully against the government because the possibility of harm to a private party is often if not always grossly outweighed by the public interest in enforcement of congressionally mandated public policy