  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
In re Omine, 485 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. May 11, 2007) (State of Hawaii's sovereign immunity was both abrogated and waived, and thus the State was subject to sanction for violation of the automatic stay by attempting to collect directly from Chapter 13 debtors outside of their bankruptcy plan.)
Village of Rosemont v. Jaffe, 482 F.3d 926 (7th Cir. Apr. 3, 2007) (Since sovereign immunity prevented bankruptcy court from granting the relief sought and the confirmed plan in the Chapter 11 case did not require defendants to act in accord with the relief sought, dismissal of adversary proceedings against state gaming board and its members was proper.)
Kuhl v. United States, 467 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2006) (Bankruptcy court does not have jurisdiction to hear debtor's post-discharge claim against the IRS for attorney's fees resulting from a garnishment to recover a discharged debt. The waiver of sovereign immunity for the IRS's willful violation of the S 524(a)(2) discharge injunction is limited - the debtor must first exhaust administrative remedies under 26 U.S.C. S 7430.)
Zaylor v. Department of Agric. (In re Supreme Beef Processors, Inc.), 468 F.3d 248 (5th Cir. Oct. 19, 2006) (en banc) (If the debtor could not recover against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") for the debtor's pre-petition injury, then the debtor does not hold a claim against a governmental unit that is property of the estate under S 106(c). Accordingly, the debtor's claim is subject to sovereign immunity.)
In re Neal, 461 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. Aug. 29, 2006) (Bankruptcy Court erred in placing under seal a list of creditors that included the names of attorneys who made loans to debtor, including a former municipal judge with a gambling addiction.)
Fehribach v. Ernst & Young LLP, 493 F.3d 905 (7th Cir. July 17, 2007) (Defendant waived its S 108(a) statute of limitations defense by raising it for the first time before the Seventh Circuit. Absent waiver, the underlying adversary proceeding for professional negligence and breach of contract would have time-barred, because it was filed by the trustee more than three years after the bankruptcy filing and also after the expiration of the statute of limitations under state law. Defendant had erroneously assumed that the suit was timely because the state-law statute of limitations had not expired as of the bankruptcy filing.)
