Delaware Federal Court Affirms Bankruptcy Act Did Not Abrogate Tribal Immunity

Here are the materials in In re Money Centers Inc. (D. Del.):

15 Appellant Brief

16 Appellee Brief

17 Thunderbird Appellee Brief

18 Reply

23. Memorandum Affirming BR Court 3-29-18

114. Opinion Granting QCA MTD 2-28-17

Federal Court Holds Federal Bankruptcy Code Did Not Waive Tribal Immunity under Bay Mills Clear Statement Rule

Here are the materials in Buchwald Capital Advisors, LLC v. Papas (In re Greektown Holdings, LLC):

8 Sault Tribe Brief

10 Buchwald Capital Brief

12 Sault Reply

15 DCT order

This case is on appeal from the bankruptcy court. Here are those materials.

Federal Bankruptcy Court Holds Congress Abrogated Tribal Immunity in Bankruptcy Act

Here are the materials in In re Greektown Holdings LLC (E.D. Mich. Bkrcy.):

453 SSM Renewed Motion to Dismiss

463 Opposition

469 SSM Reply

474 Bankruptcy Court Order

An excerpt:


In sum, although Indian tribes have a “thumb on the interpretive scale” tending to tip the balance in their favor in the event of an ambiguity or lack of clarity, that does not come into play because, in this Court’s view, Congress sufficiently, clearly, and unequivocally intended to abrogate their sovereign immunity in the subject statute.


Federal Bankruptcy Court Holds Future Tribal Per Caps Not Subject to Capture by Trustees

Here are the materials in In re Barth (D. Minn. Bkrtcy.):


Debtors Motion for Summary J

Trustee Motion for Summary J

Debtor Response

Trustee Response

An excerpt:

The Debtors are enrolled members of the Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota. Their predominant source of income is monthly per capita payments they receive from Lower Sioux. In these three adversary proceedings, the Chapter 7 trustees seek orders requiring the defendants to turnover post-petition per capita payments they receive from the Lower Sioux Indian Community, claiming that the payments are contingent property rights that existed at filing and constitute 11 U.S.C. § 541(a) property of the bankruptcy estates. The assertion is based on the plaintiffs’ application of Minnesota law to determine the nature of the per capita payments. The defendants claim that the defendants had no property interest in future per capita payments at filing of the bankruptcies. They claim that tribal law, not Minnesota law, is the applicable law and that tribal law specifically provides that tribal members have no property right in future per capita payments. Plaintiffs and defendants agree that summary judgment is appropriate. The Court agrees with the defendants and holds that they had no property rights in future per capita payments at bankruptcy filing and that they are entitled to summary judgment that their bankruptcy estates have no interest in the payments.

The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the claim against the Lower Sioux Indian Community earlier; we posted materials here.