in order for a federal court to exercise federal “arising under” jurisdiction. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152-53, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908). If there is no federal question evident from the complaint, federal “arising under” jurisdiction cannot be based on an anticipated federal law defense or on a counterclaim. Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831-32, 122 S.Ct. 1889, 153 L.Ed.2d 13 (2002). However, the well-pleaded-complaint rule only applies to assertions of jurisdiction “arising under” federal law, such as federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) or patent and copyright jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)). Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. S.G., 505 U.S. 247, 258, 112 S.Ct. 2465, 120 L.Ed.2d 201 (1992) (<HOLDING>); see also Holmes Group, Inc., 535 U.S. at
holding that the wellpleadedcomplaint rule did not apply to the red crosss jurisdictional authorization to sue and be sued holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act holding that the trustee alone has the capacity to sue and be sued  holding that the words sue and be sued when used in a statute do not by themselves waive immunity holding that sue and be sued provisions of agencies should be liberally construed and that  authorization of suits against federal entities engaged in commercial activities may waive sovereign immunity from awards of interest as an incident of suit 