Menu    3 ABR 383 
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA


In re Case No. 5-85-00007-HAR
In Chapter 11

In re HAIDA CORPORATION,

Debtor     

ADV PROC NO 5-85-00007-001-HAR
(BANCAP No. N/A)

 

MEMORANDUM REGARDING INTEREST

HAIDA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff     

v.

COLEMAN DRILLING, INC., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, and GORDON ZERBETZ, Trustee of the Island Logging Bankruptcy Estate,

Defendants     

After a trial on February 24, 1994, the Court asked the parties to file briefs regarding the appropriate interest to be awarded and the money to be reimbursed by the United States to Haida Corporation.

After reviewing the briefs, I adopt the position of the United States that Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 US 310 (1986), controls, and that no interest in required in a judgment against the United States, absent a specfic, separate waiver of sovereign immunity vis-a-vis the allowance of interest. See, also, Rooney v United States, 694 F2d 582 (9th Cir 1982).

Haida Corporation has not pointed to any statute that convincingly establishes a waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States regarding interest on a judgment such as in this adversary proceeding. Several bankruptcy cases involving the judgments against the United States have allowed interest, but none involved a situation where no statute waived sovereign immunity, at least as the bankruptcy judge saw it.

For example, interest was allowed in In re Bridge, 106 BR 474 (Bankr ED Mich 1989), based on the United States held Canadian treasury bills which were property of the estate for 5 years after maturity without reinvesting the proceeds based on a right found under 11 USC § 542. The   TOP    3 ABR 384  court did not discuss the Shaw case or sovereign immunity.

Likewise, in In re Harvard Mfg. Corp., 97 BR 879, 884 (Bankr ND Ohio 1989) the court found the waiver of sovereign immunity under 11 USC § 106(c) sufficient as a waiver regarding the award of interest. This does not address the authority indicating that there must be a separate waiver regarding interest. Miller v Alamo, 992 F2d 766, 767 (8th Cir 1993).

Therefore, the judgment in favor of Haida will be without interest.

    DATED: May 10, 1994

                HERBERT A. ROSS
                U.S. Bankruptcy Judge