Laserfiche WebLink
participating in a bankruptcy proceeding or to partially waive that immunity by filing a claim. <br /> "The choice is left to the state." 143 F.3d at 1392. There can be no doubt that here, DMG has <br /> chosen to fully participate in MCR's bankruptcy case. See also. In re Talhot, supra (Internal <br /> Revenue Service not immune from disgorgement action under 11 U.S.C. § 106(a)); In re Willis, <br /> 230 B.R. 619 (Bankr. E.D. Okla. March 2, 1999) (Internal Revenue Service and State of <br /> Oklahoma not immune to claim by debtors seeking determination of taxes, interest and penalties <br /> owed debtor); Sutton v. Utah State School for the Deaf and Blind, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 3159 <br /> (10"' Cir. March 1, 1999) (". . . where a State voluntarily becomes a party to a cause and submits <br /> its rights for judicial determination, it will be bound thereby and cannot escape the result of its <br /> own voluntary act by invoking the [sovereign immunity] prohibitions of the Eleventh <br /> Amendment", supra at * 22-23.) <br /> 11 U.S.C. § 106(a) also authorizes MCR's claims. That section states in part, <br /> "Notwithstanding an assertion of sovereign immunity, sovereign immunity is abrogated as to a <br /> governmental unit to the extent set forth in this section with respect to the following: (1) <br /> Sections. . . 1141, 1142. . ." 11 U.S.C. § 1141(a), in turn, states in part, ". . . the provisions of a <br /> confirmed plan bind the debtor, . . . any entity acquiring property under the plan, and any creditor, <br /> . . . whether or not the claim or interest of such creditor. . . . is impaired under the plan and whether <br /> or not such creditor. . . . has accepted the plan." Here, MCR is attempting to enforce the confirmed <br /> plan. Further, 11 U.S.C. § 1 142(a). states in part, ". . . the debtor and any entity organized or to be <br /> organized for the purpose of carrying out the plan, shall carry out the plan and shall comply with <br /> any order of the court." MCR's causes of action in this matter are designed to properly carry out the <br /> plan as confirmed. Thus, this Court need go no further than 11 U.S.C. § 106 to determine that <br /> DMG's sovereign immunity argument is without merit. However, there are additional reasons <br /> 9 <br />