In the ruling, Pitkin rejected the tribe’s claims that their division’s actions had been “an work to circumvent the defenses of tribal sovereign immunity” and “an affront to tribal sovereignty.”

In the ruling, Pitkin rejected the tribe’s claims that their division’s actions had been “an work to circumvent the defenses of tribal sovereign immunity” and “an affront to tribal sovereignty.” Not only did bank regulators adequately expose the loan that is tribal’ actions violated Connecticut banking statutes, but Pitkin penned, “in my view of the […]

Ler mais