(1984)) (where "claimant ... was seeking to hold the agency liable just like 'any other business,' it was only natural for the Court to look to the liability of private businesses for guidance”); O’Melveny & Myers v. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79, 86, 114 S.Ct. 2048, 129 L.Ed.2d 67 (1994) (finding that "Section 1821(d)(2)(A)(I), which is part of a title captioned 'Powers and duties of [the FDIC] as ... receiver,’ states that 'the [FDIC] shall, ... by operation of law, succeed to-all rights, titles, powers, and privileges of the insured depository institution ....’ 12 U.S.C. § 1821 (d)(2)(A)(I) (1988 ed„ Supp. IV). This language appears to indicate that the FDIC as receiver 'steps into the shoes’ of the failed S&L”); Loeffler v. Frank, 486 U.S. 549, 554-55, 108 S.Ct. 1965, 100 L.Ed.2d 549 (1988) (<HOLDING>); N. Bank v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 242 Neb.
holding that an act of legislature may be required to waive sovereign immunity holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity holding that the words sue and be sued when used in a statute do not by themselves waive immunity holding that a governments consent to be sued must be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign 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 