With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". could not seek to collect a debt from an insolvent government contractor by asserting an equitable lien directly against the Army. 525 U.S. at 256-57, 119 S.Ct. 687. The Court held that the government had not waived sovereign immunity with respect to such suits. Id. at 257, 119 S.Ct. 687. In the course of its opinion, the Court stated that neither Prairie State, Henningsen nor Pearlman "involved a question of sovereign immunity.” Id. at 264-65, 119 S.Ct. 687. The Court further noted that those cases “do not in any way disturb the established rule that, unless waived by Congress, sovereign immunity bars subcontractors or other creditors from enforcing liens on Government property or funds to recoup their losses.” Id. at 265, 119 S.Ct. 687; see also United Elec., 647 F.2d at 1083 (<HOLDING>). 12 . The portion from Munsey Trust to which

A: holding that an agreement which required the submission of an affidavit of payment to subcontractors or lien waivers before payment was made by the general contractor was for the direct benefit of the subcontractors
B: holding that plaintiffs do not lose their right to sue for damages sustained within statute of limitations period by failing to sue on earlier incidents in timely manner
C: holding eighteen years prior to blue fox that subcontractors may not sue the government directly for their compensation
D: holding that a surety has standing to sue for a progress payment released by the government after notification by the surety of unpaid subcontractors
C.