You are here

Civil Resource Manual 192. Sovereign Immunity -- 11 U.S.C. § 106(a)

192.

Sovereign Immunity -- 11 U.S.C. § 106(a)

1. Generally
2. Punitive Damages and Attorney Fees
3. Enforcement of Judgments
4. Claims Under the Bankruptcy Rules
5. No New Substantive Claims or Causes of Action
6. Other Governmental Units



 1.   Generally.              Section 106(a) now lists those sections of Bankruptcy Code with respect to  which sovereign immunity is abrogated.  This listing effectively allows the  assertion of bankruptcy causes of action, but specifically excludes causes  of action belonging to the debtor that become property of the estate under  § 541.  Unlike the old section 106, which (absent a governmental unit's filing a  proof of claim) only allowed declaratory or injunctive relief with respect  to Bankruptcy Code based causes of action, monetary judgments may now be  entered.  The legislative history accompanying the Bankruptcy Reform Act of  1994 states that new § 106(a) "effectively overrule[s] two Supreme  Court cases [Hoffman v. Conn. Dep't of Income Maint., 492 U.S. 96  (1989) and United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30 (1992)]   that had held that the States and Federal Government are not deemed to have  waived their sovereign immunity by virtue of enacting [old] section 106(c)  of the Bankruptcy Code. . . .  This amendment expressly provides for a  waiver of sovereign immunity by governmental units with respect to monetary  recoveries as well as declaratory and injunctive relief."  140 Cong. Rec.  H10766 (daily ed. Oct. 4, 1994).  Query: may a third party bring the action?  See IRS v. Amoskeag  Bank Shares, Inc. (In re Amoskeag Bank Shares, Inc.), 239 B.R. 653, 658  (D.N.H. 1998) (allowing former employee of debtor to intervene in § 505   action).  But see United States v. Zellers (In re CNS, Inc.),  255 B.R. 198 (N.D. Ohio 2000) (Bankruptcy Code's sovereign immunity waiver  does not provide U.S. consent for non-debtor to obtain a binding  determination of his own tax liability, indirectly, by objecting to IRS  claim against debtor; such objection violates Anti- Injunction Act, 26  U.S.C. § 7421).         2. Punitive Damages and Attorney Fees.  Section 106(a)(3) specifically provides that punitive damages may not be  awarded against a governmental unit.  See also Taylor v. United  States (In re Taylor), 263 B.R. 139, 153 (N.D. Ala. 2001) (no punitive  damages against U.S. unless Congress explicitly authorizes) (note: on appeal   to 11th Cir.).  Section 106(a)(3) also provides that any award of attorney  fees is subject to the hourly rate limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. §   2412(d)(2)(a) (EAJA), and these limitations are applicable to all  governmental units, not just the United States.  See also Jove  Eng'g, Inc. v. IRS, 92 F.3d 1539 (11th Cir. 1996) (attorney fee award  must be consistent with EAJA or IRC 7430). But see Brown v. IRS  (In re Brown), 211 B.R. 1020 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1997) (IRC 7430 not  applicable because bankruptcy court is not "court of the United States;  award need only be consistent with EAJA, per 106(a)(3), and thus, no need to   exhaust administrative remedies).         3. Enforcement of Judgments.       a.    Generally.                   Section 106(a)(4) provides that enforcement of any judgment or             order against a governmental unit shall be "consistent with             appropriate nonbankruptcy law applicable to such governmental             unit."         b.    Money Judgments Against the United States.             A money judgment against the United States "shall be paid as if             it is a judgment rendered by a district court of the United             States."  Such judgments are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2414.     4. Claims Under the Bankruptcy Rules.  Section 106(a) provides a waiver of sovereign immunity for claims under both   the Bankruptcy Code and under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy  Procedure.  The provisions of Rule 9011 (sanctions) and 9020 (contempt) may  prove to be the most affected by this change.  Whether this can result in an   unconstitutional delegation of legislative power (at least for future rules,   which are proposed by the Judicial Conference) remains to be seen.          5. No New Substantive Claims or Causes of Action.  Section 106(a)(5) explicitly provides that no new substantive claim for  relief not otherwise existing under the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy  Rules or nonbankruptcy law is created.  This may prove to be helpful in  instances where debtors seek to assert creative theories not otherwise  cognizable under existing law.  In Field v. Montgomery County (In re  Anton Motors, Inc.), 177 B.R. 58 (Bankr. D. Md. 1995), the court found  no waiver of sovereign immunity for a claim under § 544 even though  that section is one for which sovereign immunity has been abrogated by the  1994 amendments.  Section 544 only permits the trustee to avoid transfers  "voidable under applicable law by a creditor holding an unsecured claim;" in   other words, it allows a trustee to assume causes of action under state law.    The court found that Maryland law did not authorize such a suit, and §  106(a)(5) does not create any substantive cause of action; therefore, §   106(a) did not abrogate sovereign immunity.  See also Taylor v.  United States (In re Taylor), 263 B.R. 139 (N.D. Ala. 2001) (appeal to  11th Cir. pending) (emotional distress damages are not recoverable for  violations of 11 U.S.C. § 525, especially where no supporting medical  evidence was presented; such compensation would be in the nature of punitive   damages which, with respect to the United States, are explicitly  prohibited).         6. Other Governmental Units.       a.    States.  See section II.E below concerning the applicability of             § 106 to the States.       b.    Indian Tribes.  See In re Nat'l Cattle Cong., 247             B.R. 259 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2000) (Congress has not unequivocally             abrogated tribe's sovereign immunity via 11 U.S.C. § 106(a);              tribe's proof of claim with disclaimer of waiver did not waive             immunity; tribe must elect between withdrawing its proof of claim              and removing its waiver disclaimer);  see also Stringer              v. Chrysler (In re Stringer), 252 B.R. 900 (Bankr. W.D. Pa.             2000) (bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to hear adversary             proceeding does not operate to pierce an Indian nation's immunity              from suit) (dicta).       c.    Foreign Nations.  Section 106(a) overrides the Foreign Sovereign             Immunity Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1604.  Tuli v. Iraq, 172             F.3d 707, 711-12 (9th Cir. 1999).
Updated February 19, 2015