Sovereign immunity does not shield a company associated with the Lower Brule Indian tribe from discovery requests in a lawsuit over a botched loan purchase deal, though the company may be able to assert sovereign immunity later in the case, a Manhattan judge has ruled.
Supreme Court Justice Eileen Bransten (See Profile) ruled in Seaport Loan Products v. Lower Brule Community Development Enterprise, 651492/12, that Lower Brule Community Development Enterprise, a subsidiary of a company incorporated as a tribal entity under the Indian Reorganization Act, must respond to discovery requests relevant to whether or not it is protected by sovereign immunity in a lawsuit accusing it of failing to make good on an agreement to sell a $22.5 million loan. The order was signed on Dec. 14 and entered on Jan. 8.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
