focus on the relationship between the agencies and the state treasury. If that relationship reveals that the agencies act, in effect, as a unitary creditor for non-bankruptcy purposes, the agencies should be treated as such in the bankruptcy context as well. This approach is supported by the interpretation given to “governmental unit” in other contexts. For example, where general setoff rights are concerned, see 11 U.S.C. § 553(a), courts, analogizing to the federal government’s right to setoff outside of bankruptcy, see Cherry Cotton Mills v. United States, 327 U.S. 536, 105 Ct.Cl. 824, 66 S.Ct. 729, 90 L.Ed. 835 (1946) (recognizing federal government’s right to interagency setoff); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chateaugay Corp.), 94 F.3d 772, 776, 778-79 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>), treat agencies and departments of the federal
holding that federal government agencies have a common law right to interagency setoff recognizing common law right of access to judicial documents recognizing existence of common law right of setoff in oklahoma holding that state and local government agencies were not persons under the fca holding agencies of state government are part of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity