matters to which the contract interpretation may be applied, we review only to determine if the agency’s determination was arbitrary or capricious, although even this inquiry into the facts is to be searching and careful.” Id. at 498 (internal quota tion marks omitted). Carrington Gardens asserts that HUD breached the 286 Regulatory Agreement by failing to clear the adverse audit reports in response to information it submitted. Additionally, Carrington Gardens alleges that HUD breached the agreement by declaring a default on the basis of the uncleared audit findings. The court finds that the process of investigating violations of regulatory agreements and declaring defaults is committed to HUD’s discretion. Cf. United States v. Winthrop Towers, 628 F.2d 1028, 1036 (7th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the audit reflected that
holding that judicial scrutiny of attorney performance must be highly deferential holding that statutes restricting judicial review of discretionary decisions do not preclude review of challenges to the constitutionality of ins regulations but holding that petitioners failure to receive discretionary relief does not rise to a constitutionally protected interest holding that regardless of the parties agreement to the contrary district courts must review an arbitrators findings of fact and conclusions of law under the highly deferential standard set forth in 9 usc  10a holding on the basis of the highly discretionary nature of the decisions hud must make in the course of administering loans it has insured or taken by assignment that judicial review of huds decision to foreclose should be deferential recognizing the rock solid basis for such a deferential standard of review