Navajo Nation – Page 30

On Tribal Courts and the Navajo Bond Offering

November 16, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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.

Continue reading →

Navajo Nation to Offer Bonds

November 10, 2011Adrea Korthase1 Comment

Bloomberg Businessweek article here. An excerpt

The largest American Indian tribe, the Navajo Nation, plans to issue its first bonds in a $120 million offering that would be the biggest sale of nongaming tribal debt in at least a decade. The tribe intends to use the money to create thousands of jobs and stimulate the economy on its reservation in America’s Southwest. Despite the Navajo Nation’s energy revenue, more than 37 percent of the reservation’s 170,000 residents lived below the federal poverty level in 2009. “I am concerned with the time when we won’t have revenues from our natural resources,” said Katherine Benally, head of the Navajo Nation Council’s resources and development committee, while taking a break from a council budget session in Window Rock, Ariz. “We need to be ready for that.”

and

The Navajo bonds will be sold to institutional investors in a private placement as soon as yearend and will likely 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.

New Scholarship on Intergovernmental Agreements at Navajo

September 20, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Paul Spruhan has posted “Standard Contract Clauses in State-Tribal Agreements: The Navajo Nation Experience“, forthcoming in the Tulsa Law Review, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

The paper discusses the attempts by the Navajo Nation and the States of Arizona and New Mexico to create standard contract clauses for agreements between the Nation and those states. The Nation and the States have numerous contractual relationships, primarily concerning funding for Nation programs, but also concerning law enforcement, rights-of-way grants, and other issues. Sovereignty issues on both sides have complicated the contracting process, as the Nation and the states have legislatively-mandated contract clauses that each must include in their agreements. Further, dispute resolution issues have caused friction, as each side possesses sovereign immunity but allows arbitration if enforcement of an award is brought in its own court system.

In an attempt to resolve these issues, the Nation and the states recently have established standard contract clauses that apply generally to agreements between the sovereigns. The standard clauses allow for arbitration of disputes, with enforcement against the states in state court, and against the Nation in Navajo Nation court. In the case of Arizona, the standard clauses also cover discrimination, citizenship verification, and other issues. Though all issues have not been resolved by these clauses, and it remains to be seen how such clauses will be implemented, the standard contract clause model can be useful to other tribes and states who seek efficient and consistent methods of contracting without sacrificing core principles of tribal and state sovereignty.

Final Cert Stage Brief (I Think) in Peabody Western/Navajo Nation/EEOC Cert Petitions

September 10, 2011September 9, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

EEOC Conditional Reply

Federal Court Dismisses State Law Claims re: Gasoline Spill on Navajo Trust Lands

August 15, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Felix v. Pic-N-Run (D. Ariz.):

DCT Order Dismissing Felix Complaint

Baldwin Motion to Dismiss

Milam Defendants Motion to Dismiss

Felix Response to Baldwin Motion

Felix Response to Milam Motion

Baldwin Reply

Milam Reply

MSU Law Grad Moves to Navajo D.C. Office

July 24, 2011July 25, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From ICT:

The Navajo Nation Washington Office has a new government and legislative affairs associate who will focus on education and public safety, Brian Quint.

“Brian brings a keen knowledge of Navajo legal processes to our team and we are excited to bring him on board,” said NNWO Executive Director Clara Pratte in a news release.

This isn’t his first gig working for the Navajo Nation though. He previously was an attorney at the Navajo Nation Office of Legislative Counsel where he provided legal services to the Navajo Nation Council. Before that he spent four years as an attorney at DNA-Peoples’ Legal Services at the Hopi/Kearns Canyon and Tuba City, Arizona offices.

Quint is from southwest Michigan, and obtained his Juris Doctor from the Michigan State University College of Law and his bachelor’s in international relations from Michigan State University (MSU). At MSU he focused his studies on federal Indian law and participated in the Indigenous Law and Policy Center.

Navajo Nation Moves to Intervene in Environmental Suit to Protect Navajo Mine Interests

June 14, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Center for Biological Diversity v. Pizarchik (D. Colo.):

Amended_Motion_to_Intervene_CBDv.U.S.&BHP

Ex.A_Dismiss

Ex.B_Shelly

Ex.C_Cicchetti

Federal Prosecutors Decline Half of Indian Country Cases in Arizona

June 1, 2011June 1, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the news article.

An excerpt:

The Arizona letters provide a window into a much larger government study of Department of Justice records in which 50 percent of the 9,000 cases filed from tribal lands during fiscal years 2005-2009 were declined.

In the study, 42 percent of rejections were attributed to weak or insufficient admissible evidence; 18 percent to “no federal offense evident;” and another 12 percent to witness problems.

In the AP’s Arizona review, the reasons – many cases cite more than one – were:

– 59 percent cited insufficient or inadmissible evidence. That could mean anything from inferior investigations by law enforcement to inadequate crime scene preservation.

– 27 percent cited witness problems, which can include witnesses recanting, being viewed as not credible, or simply disappearing.

– 16 percent cited a lack of jurisdiction, which can speak to the level of a crime. For example, the injuries of a detention sergeant beaten by an inmate weren’t serious enough to be a federal crime.

Continue reading →