Summary

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Hoffman v. Connecticut Department Of Income Maintenance…

The drafters of the Bankruptcy Code were well aware of the value to the bankruptcy administration process of a waiver of federal and state sovereign immunity. In 1973, five years before the Code was enacted, the Commission on the Bankruptcy Laws of the United States proposed a broad waiver of sovereign immunity under which every provision of the proposed bankruptcy bill would apply to the States.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Hoffman v. Connecticut Department Of Income Maintenance…

Given this history it is apparent that the initial phrase in paragraph (c) (" [e] xcept as provided in subsections (a) and (b) ") constituted a declaration that the new subsection provided an additional mechanism by which the bankruptcy courts could bind States and did not derogate from the power granted under the other two subsections.
There is no question that § 106 (c) effects a waiver of sovereign immunity.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Hoffman v. Connecticut Department Of Income Maintenance…

The statute, which applies to the Federal Government, the States, and municipalities alike, see 11 U.S.C. § 101 (21) , states in the clearest possible terms that provisions of the Code using any of the trigger words apply to governmental units "notwithstanding any assertion of sovereign immunity," and the legislative history supports that reading. It is well settled that when the Federal Government waives its sovereign immunity, the scope of that waiver is construed liberally to effect its remedial purposes.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature