that action to waive the state’s immunity with respect to that claim in toto and, therefore, to construe that waiver to encompass compulsory counterclaims, even though they could require affirmative recovery from the state.”); In re Straight, 143 F.3d 1387, 1392 (10th Cir.1998) (finding that a state’s proof of claim in bankruptcy proceedings waives Eleventh Amendment immunity from compulsory counterclaims); In re Creative Goldsmiths, 119 F.3d 1140, 1148 (4th Cir.1997) (suggesting that as long as the claims of the party opposing the plaintiff state “amount to a compulsory counterclaim, a state has waived any Eleventh Amendment immunity against that counterclaim in order to avail itself of the federal forum”); In re 995 Fifth Ave. Associates, L.P., 963 F.2d 503, 509 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Since Lapides, this trend among the circuits
holding that local school boards were not entitled to eleventh amendment immunity even though entitled to sovereign immunity in the same degree as the state itself from tort suits holding that the eleventh amendment protected the state from the risk of adverse judgments even though the state was fully indemnified by the federal government for any damages that would arise from that judgment holding that when a state  files a proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding the state waives its eleventh amendment immunity with regard to the bankruptcy estates claims that arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the states claim holding that a state waives eleventh amendment immunity to claims that arise from the same transaction or occurrence holding that the eleventh amendment immunity bars title i employment discrimination claims against a state for monetary damages