the purposes of triggering review of the Bank’s actions under the APA, the Bank is an “agency” of the U.S., we conclude that the establishment of the OSC terms or the Bank’s decision to lend Fidelity advances under those terms was not “state action”. These conclusions are entirely consistent with the main stream of case law which permits such a distinction. See, e.g., Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison, 419 U.S. 345, 95 S.Ct. 449, 42 L.Ed.2d 477 (1974) (“[t]he mere fact that a business is subject to [government] regulation does not be itself convert its action into that of the government for constitutional purposes. Id. at 350 [95 S.Ct. at 453] ”); Roberts v. Cameron-Brown Co., 556 F.2d 356, 358 (5th Cir.1977). Compare Northrip v. Fed. National Mortgage Ass’n, 527 F.2d 23 (6th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). If Fidelity cannot establish state action, it
holding that rookerfeldman barred a debtors action to rescind a mortgage because it was inextricably intertwined with a state courts foreclosure judgment which was premised on the existence of a valid mortgage holding nonjudicial foreclosure did not involve sufficient state action to trigger iowa constitutions due process clause recognizing that plaintiff can bring action under due process clause of state constitution holding that foreclosure of prior mortgage extinguished second mortgage holding that foreclosure on mortgage not state action and thus could not trigger due process clause scrutiny