account of the legislative history, the BAP rightly concluded that on the facts of this case a proof of claim need not necessarily be filed to trigger the waiver of sovereign immunity set forth in section 106(a). This result effectuates Congress’s desire to prohibit the government from participating in the distribution of the bankruptcy estate without relinquishing part of its sovereign immunity. See supra, H.R.Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 317, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6274, (“The governmental unit cannot receive distribution from the estate without subjecting itself to any liability it has to the estate within the confines of a compulsory counterclaim rule. Any other result would be one-sided.”); see also In re OPM Leasing Servs., 21 B.R. 993, 1001-02 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1982) (<HOLDING>); In re Davis, 20 B.R. 519, 520-23
holding that a debtors adversary proceeding against the university of virginia to determine the dischargeability of a debt is a suit for eleventh amendment purposes holding that sovereign immunity barred a wrongful death claim against the board and stating that the only question is whether the boards sovereign immunity protection was waived emphasis added holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding holding that a claim that sovereign immunity has been waived is itself waived if not argued on appeal holding that west virginia waived sovereign immunity by initiating adversary proceeding even though it had not filed a proof of claim