Tax Bd. of Cal. v. United States Postal Serv., 467 U.S. 512, 104 S.Ct. 2549, 81 L.Ed.2d 446 (1984)). FDIC, by contrast, was created by the Federal Deposit Insurance Act “to regulate banks.” Lambert v. FDIC, 847 F.2d 604, 606 (9th Cir.1988). Unlike the Post Office, the FDIC operates at a loss to the Treasury; it is not a profit-making enterprise. See H.R.Rep. No. 101-54(1), at 103 (1989), reprinted in 1989 U.S.C.C.A.N. 86, 103. In short, because FDIC is not a commercial entity and because Congress has not explicitly waived its immunity against interest, FDIC is not subject to a prejudgment interest award. Thus, the district court did not err by denying the Investors prejudgment interest. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp., 25 F.3d 1493, 1506 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The Investors also request a remand for a
holding that fdic is immune against interest holding that titere is a significant distinction between fdic in its corporate capacity and its receivership capacity where fdic acts as a receiver it is not immune from prejudgment interest recognizing that the municipal function test is used to determine both whether municipalities are immune from suit and immune from running of statutes of limitations holding that the state is immune from punitive awards holding that if a state is immune from underlying discrimination then it follows that the state must be immune from claims alleging retaliation for protesting against discrimination