economic development

ASU Law Tribal Government E-Commerce Conference Feb 2-3/17 — REGISTRATION OPEN

December 2, 2016December 2, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are some details:

The Indian Legal Program at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University is hosting its third annual Tribal Government E-Commerce CLE Conference entitled: Sovereignty and E-Commerce: Innovating and Reshaping the Borders of Indian Country

Thursday, February 2 – Friday, February 3, 2017

Wild Horse Pass Hotel & Casino, Chandler, AZ

Agenda topics include:

Political Landscape in Indian Country
Infrastructure and Broadband
Jurisdiction, E-Commerce & State Regulation
Legal Update on Tribal E-Commerce
Tribal Consultation
E-Commerce Entrepreneurship: Models of Excellence in Real Life
I-Gaming and E-Sports Fantasy
Cyber Liability
and more!

Conference Keynote: The Honorable Kenneth L. Salazar, 50th U.S. Secretary of the Interior in the Obama Administration from 2009 – 2013., and a Partner with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.

Click here for more information Government/Non-Profit and Early Registration Rates available.

Presented by: Rosette, LLP American Indian Economic Development Program, and the Indian Legal Program

Eighth Circuit Materials in Challenge to Tribal Court Jurisdiction over Trust Land Minerals Royalties

November 30, 2016February 24, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation v. Wilkinson:

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

District of North Dakota materials:

4 Enerplus Motion for PI

10 Wilkinson Opposition

10-3 MHA Nation SCT Opinion

19 Enerplus Response

48 DCT Order

Tribal Lender Immune from Telephone Consumer Protection Act Suit

November 4, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Finn v. Great Plains Lending LLC (W.D. Okla.):

Energy Tribes Testify against Federal Oversight in House Resources Committee Hearing

October 6, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the witness list with links to testimony (and a link to the hearing itself):

The Honorable James M. “Mike” Olguin
Tribal Council Member
Southern Ute Indian Tribe
Ignacio, CO
(Disclosure Form)

The Honorable Jack Ferguson
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Representative, Intertribal Timber Council
Nespelem, WA
(Disclosure Form)

Mr. Richard Glenn
Executive Vice President, Lands & Natural Resources
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
Barrow, AK
(Disclosure Form)

Mr. Louis Denetsosie
President & CEO
Navajo Nation Oil and Gas Co.
Window Rock, AZ
(Disclosure Form)

Mr. Eric Henson
Senior Vice President, Compass Lexecon
Research Affiliate, Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development
Tuscon, AZ
(Disclosure Form)

Tribal Law & Economic Development Lecture at Northern Michigan University Wednesday

September 20, 2016Sarah M Donnelly

Download flyer (PDF)

Wednesday, September 21 at 7 p.m.
Whitman Hall Commons | NMU Campus
Reception to follow.
For more information call 906-227-1397 or visit nmu.edu/cnas

Connecticut Superior Court (again) Acknowledges Tribal Immunity in Great Plains Lending v. State Dept. of Banking

September 7, 2016September 7, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials:

commissioners-proposed-order

great-plains-motion

objection

greatplainsorderaug31

By of background, in November 2015, the Connecticut Superior Court issued a decision in the Otoe-Missouria Tribe’s favor, remanding a prior state agency decision which purported to subject the Tribe’s lending entities and Chairman Shotton to civil and injunctive damages. Following this ruling, the Connecticut Department of Banking attempted to run afoul of the Court’s prior decision and potentially subject the Tribe to participating in its administrative proceedings through discovery and possible depositions.

On August 31, 2016, the Connecticut Superior Court rejected this attempt and issued another ruling the Tribe’s favor and reaffirming its decision from November 2016 and granting the Tribe’s most recent challenge by issuing another strong decision in its favor. In doing so, the Court explicitly stated that the Tribe’s rights were “substantially prejudiced” as a result of the Department’s actions.