Here are the materials in United Planners Financial Services of America LLP v. Sac and Fox Nation (W.D. Okla.):
13 Housing Authority Motion to Dismiss
17 Sac & Fox Nation Motion to Dismiss
The complaint is here.
Tribal court materials are here.
Here are the materials in United Planners Financial Services of America LLP v. Sac and Fox Nation (W.D. Okla.):
13 Housing Authority Motion to Dismiss
17 Sac & Fox Nation Motion to Dismiss
The complaint is here.
Tribal court materials are here.
Here:
Lower court materials here.
Here is the opinion in United Planners Financial Services of America v. Sac and Fox Nation:
An excerpt:
There is nothing in the record indicating that the Business Committee met, voted, and approved by resolution or otherwise any specific arbitration clause with Broker or approved any broker agreement, by reference to a specific agreement, which contained an arbitration clause. We do not find any error with the District Court’s finding that authorized representatives of the Nation did execute the broker agreements with Broker. This is because certain officials of the Nation were authorized by resolution to “sell, assign and endorse for transfer, certificates representing stocks, bonds, or other securities now registered or hereafter registered in the name of this corporation.” (App. Rec. at 85-88). But this general approval to engage in broker activities does not rise to the level of an express approval of any arbitration clause or waiver of tribal sovereign immunity. Thus, while we find that the broker agreements were validly approved by the Nation, we do not find valid approval of the arbitration clause that would subject the Nation to be compelled to arbitrate.
Here are the materials in Miccosukee Tribe v. Cypress (S.D. Fla.):
DCT Order Granting Morgan Stanley Motion
Morgan Stanley Motion to Dismiss
Miccosukee Opposition to Morgan Stanley Motion
Interesting question, whether the arbitration agreement signed by the former tribal chairman who now faces RICO charges from the tribe is valid or void ab initio. From the opinion:
Plaintiff, in opposition to being compelled to arbitrate its claims against Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, contends that Defendant Cypress, as the main co-conspirator in embezzling and misappropriating millions of dollars of the Miccosukee Tribe’s funds for his personal gain, was without authority to bind the Miccosukee Tribe, absent the knowledge and consent of the Miccosukee Tribe’s General Counsel, to arbitration, which effectively closes the federal courthouse doors to its claims against Morgan Stanley Smith Barney.
But the court rejected the argument:
If there is an absence of actual authority, Defendant Cypress certainly had apparently [sic] authority.