Page:Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin.pdf/10

Rh Collier on Bankruptcy ¶1.01 (16th ed. 2023); Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 4). The automatic-stay requirement, for example, keeps creditors from “dismember[ing]” the estate while the bankruptcy case proceeds. Chicago v. Fulton, 592 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 2); 11 U. S. C. §362. The Code’s discharge provision enjoins creditors from trying to collect debts that have been discharged in a bankruptcy case. §524(a). And its plan-confirmation provisions, as relevant here, “bind … each creditor” to whatever repayment plan the bankruptcy court approves, “whether or not the claim of such creditor is provided for by the plan, and whether or not such creditor has objected to, has accepted, or has rejected the plan.” §1327(a); see also, e.g., §§1141(a), 1227(a).

These protections sweep broadly, by their own terms. To facilitate the Code’s “orderly and centralized” debt-resolution process, Collier on Bankruptcy ¶1.01, these provisions’ basic requirements generally apply to all creditors. Courts can also enforce these requirements against any kind of noncompliant creditor—whether or not the creditor is a “governmental unit”—by virtue of §106(a)’s abrogation of sovereign immunity. §§§ [sic]106(a)(1)–(3).

At the same time, so as to avoid impeding the functioning of governmental entities when they act as creditors, the Code contains a number of limited exceptions. For instance, the automatic-stay requirement does not preclude “governmental unit[s]” from enforcing their “police and regulatory power[s]” in certain proceedings, §362(b)(4), or from