Last week, we posted the district court’s rejection of California’s effort to dismiss the Blue Lake FUTA case.
Here are the relevant briefs:
economic development
Profile on Coquille Sustainable Forestry Practices
Here.
Blue Lake Rancheria v. Morgenstern Order Denying Dismissal
The case regarding state unemployment taxes under FUTA will continue in the Eastern District of California. The Order is here.
Response and Reply in Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. NLRB
Here is the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe’s combined Response and Reply: Combined Response & Reply
And here is the NLRB’s reply: Reply Brief – 12-05-11
Earlier posts here.
Lax Kw’alaams Indian Band v. Canada – Something Smells Fishy About This Decision…
In Lax Kw’alaams Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 56, the Supreme Court of Canada recently (Nov. 10) dealt a serious blow to any tribes wanting to engage in commercial fisheries within their traditional territories. The unanimous, 7 judge court (McLachlin, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron, and Rothstein) rejected a claim to possession (under s. 35) of an aboriginal right to fish commercially all species in their traditional territories. Before contact with the newcomers, the Lax Kw’alaams Indian Band fished off their ancestral coast for thousands of years, regularly traded fish grease extracted from the eulachon, as well engaged in occassional trade in other fish and fish products. As such, the Lax Kw’alaams sought a declaration as to their aboriginal rights to engage in commercial fishing. The trial judge and later, the British Columbia Court of Appeal, rejected their claim. The Supreme Court followed suit – and Justice Binnie (shouldn’t he be gone by now?), writing for the court, agreed with the lower courts.
Cook Inlet Regional Corp. Tax Suit against Chickaloon Native Village
Here:
Judge Lamberth Enjoins PACT Act in Gordon v. Holder
Here is the BLT coverage. And the materials:
Convenience Stores Amicus Brief
Public Citizen Litigation Group Amicus
Gordon Reply [includes significant attachments]
Omaha Tribe v. StoreVisions Cert Opposition Brief
California Appellate Court Decides Tribal Immunity Case: Yavapai-Apache Nation v. Iipay Nation
Here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
Based on the parties’ course of dealing throughout the loan agreement transactions, in which Nation expressly and irrevocably waived tribal sovereign immunity and allowed court resolution of disputes in those courts having subject matter jurisdiction of any loan agreement problems, we conclude the trial court erred in granting the motion to quash. In any reading of the complaint, together with its exhibits and other submitted documents, Nation cannot properly invoke sovereign immunity to avoid the fourth amendment terms that allow California jurisdiction to be exercised. Nation already irrevocably waived such immunity in the earlier versions of the loan agreement, which the fourth amendment expressly ratified and affirmed, and Nation did not retract its actions. Regardless of any related loan guaranty litigation elsewhere, this record discloses that the amended loan agreement terms permit this action to proceed in California, and we reverse the order that quashed service of summons.
On Tribal Courts and the Navajo Bond Offering
Here is news analysis of the Navajo bond offering (AK previously posted about this last week). An excerpt:
S&P’s Jacob says the Navajo offering is unusual because tribes traditionally have borrowed directly from banks or sold bonds backed by gaming revenue. There are $5.3 billion of Native American bonds outstanding, according to a Bloomberg analysis.
The Navajo bonds will be sold to institutional investors in a private placement as soon as year-end and will include both taxable and tax-exempt debt, says Goe, the bond counsel.
The Navajos intend to seek investors willing to settle disputes in tribal courts, a first for a bond issue, Goe says. Clarkson says the requirement “would be a reaffirmation of the legitimacy of tribal courts – this time from the financial market.”
Yet it may also make the issue harder to sell. Lyle Fitterer, who helps oversee $26 billion of municipal bonds at Wells Capital Management in Menomonee Falls, Wis., says the tribal-court stipulation “is one more hurdle in terms of investing in a deal like this” and could lead to the Navajos paying higher rates.
Mike Lettig, executive vice president for Native American financial services and agriculture at Cleveland’s KeyBank, hopes the Navajo issue will be “a start for tribal governments to enter the public finance markets routinely.”
KeyBank’s KeyBanc Capital Markets unit will handle the placement.
Would love to be a fly on the wall in those discussions about tribal courts. Lenders routinely demand a higher rate from tribes in these deals when the deal involves tribal court jurisdiction. Why? Especially at Navajo, where tribal law is published online, the Navajo Reporter, and in West’s Navajo Nation Code (also online). I am sure the lenders’ discussions about tribal courts will be double-coded; that is, they’ll do everything they can not to offensive, while perhaps being insulting all along.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.