describing the purported side agreement. We have doubts whether such writings would meet even the first requirement: that the “agreement” itself be in writing— not other communications referring to it. 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e)(1)(A). That the agreement be in writing, however, is only one requirement of section 1823(e). The written agreement must also meet the three other non-secrecy requirements. 12 U.S.C. § 1823 (e)(l)(B)-(D). The bank executive does not state that the communication was signed by Heritage and the borrowers, approved by Heritage’s Board of Directors, or continuously kept as an official Heritage record. Nor do the borrowers point to any other evidence supporting these additional statutory requirements. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. MeCrory, 951 F;2d 68, 72 (5th Cir; 1992) (<HOLDING>); Twin Constr., Inc. v. Boca Raton, Inc., 925
holding that a bank receiving a check because of a encoding error is not a collecting bank holding that a copy of an agreement executed by an insolvent bank found in the draft documents of the banks attorney did not satisfy section 1823es requirements because it was not an official record of the failed bank holding that a written form despite outlining the obligations of both parties and existing in the insolvent banks records did not meet section 1823es requirements because it had not been executed by the failed bank holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank holding a bank officer who informed a third party that it would be safe to extend 8000 credit to bank customer although customer did not have an open account at the bank could be held liable for the material misrepresentation