Opinion ID: 335497
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Immunity Provided by Section 7(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Act.

Text: 9 Block makes a frontal assault upon the immunity provided by section 7(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 25(a)(10), and argues that the scope of that statute is too narrow to be coextensive with the privilege against self-incrimination afforded by the Fifth Amendment, and hence that the statute is void on its face. Alternatively, he argues that given the unusual circumstances of this case only transactional immunity is sufficient to protect him. 10
11 In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972), the Supreme Court rejected the notion that the Fifth Amendment requires full transactional immunity, and sanctioned a statute providing use and derivative use immunity. 3 The statute at issue in Kastigar was 18 U.S.C. § 6002, a part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. 4 12 Section 7(a)(10), also a use and derivative use statute, was enacted along with section 6002, and was designed in conformity with section 6002: 13 Section 206 This section makes a conforming amendment to (Section 7(a)(10) of) the Bankruptcy Act of July 1, 1898. H.R.Rep. 91-1118, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 14 (1970). 14