C.F.R. » Title 25 » CHAPTER III—NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER C—MANAGEMENT CONTRACT PROVISIONS › PART 533—APPROVAL OF MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS

25 C.F.R. § 533.3

Submission of management contract for approval

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

A tribe shall include in any request for approval of a management contract under this part:

(a) A contract containing:

(1) Original signatures of an authorized official of the tribe and the management contractor and;

(2) A representation that the contract as submitted to the Chairman is the entirety of the agreement among the parties.

(b) A letter, signed by the tribal chairman, setting out the authority of an authorized tribal official to act for the tribe concerning the management contract.

(c) Copies of documents evidencing the authority under paragraph (b) of this section.

(d) A list of all persons and entities identified in §§ 537.1(a) and 537.1(c)(1) of this chapter, and either:

(1) The information required under § 537.1(b)(1) of this chapter for class II gaming contracts and § 537.1(b)(1)(i) of this chapter for class III gaming contracts; or

(2) The dates on which the information was previously submitted.

(e)(1) For new contracts and new operations, a three (3)-year business plan which sets forth the parties' goals, objectives, budgets, financial plans, and related matters; or

(2) For new contracts for existing operations, a three (3)-year business plan which sets forth the parties' goals, objectives, budgets, financial plans, and related matters, and income statements and sources and uses of funds statements for the previous three (3) years.

(f) If applicable, a justification, consistent with the provisions of § 531.1(h) of this chapter, for a term limit in excess of five (5) years, but not exceeding seven (7) years.

(g) If applicable, a justification, consistent with the provisions of § 531.1(i) of this chapter, for a fee in excess of thirty (30) percent, but not exceeding forty (40) percent.

(h) A legal description for the site on which the gaming operation to be managed is, or will be, located.

[74 FR 36935, July 27, 2009, as amended at 80 FR 31994, June 5, 2015]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1999–2020 · leading case: New Gaming Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 896 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (W.D. Okla. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
New Gaming Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 896 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (W.D. Okla. 2012). · cites it 3× “She asked the Nation to submit the information and documents that, pursuant to 25 C.F.R. § 533.3 , must accompany a request for approval of a management contract within twenty days.”
Sharp Image Gaming, Inc. v. Shingle Springs Band Indians, 223 Cal. Rptr. 3d 362 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “" (25 C.F.R. 533.3(e)(1).) In our view, the failure to adhere to these procedural matters-which are required when a tribe submits management contracts for formal approval -had no impact on the Chairman's ultimate conclusion that the GMA and ELA are management contracts requiring…”
MacHal, Inc. v. Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, 387 F. Supp. 2d 659 (W.D. La. 2005). “See 25 C.F.R. § 533.3 (West 2005). A letter from the NIGC, dated 30 May 2002, clearly indicates that the parties failed to provide it with the documents requisite for a “complete submission.”
Turn Key Gaming, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, Appellee/cross-Appellant, 164 F.3d 1092 (8th Cir. 1999). “” 25 C.F.R. § 533.3 (a)(2). In addition, the regulations mandate that any management contract that does not receive approval is void, and that any attempted modification of an approved contract that does not comply with the regulations and does not receive approval, is also void.”
Jena Band of Choctaw Indians v. Tri-Millennium Corp., 387 F. Supp. 2d 671 (W.D. La. 2005). “See 25 C.F.R. § 533.3 (West 2005). A letter from the NIGC, dated 30 May 2002, clearly indicates that the parties failed to provide it with the documents requisite for a “complete submission.”
Sharp Image Gaming v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). “” (25 C.F.R. 533.3(e)(1).) In our view, the failure to adhere to these procedural matters—which are required when a tribe submits management contracts for formal approval—had no impact on the Chairman’s ultimate conclusion that the GMA and ELA are management contracts requiring…”
Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma v. Campbell (N.D. Okla. 2020). “C §2711 and 25 C.F.R. §533.3 (d) to undergo a background investigation and suitability determination before the Agreement could be approved.”
Turn Key Gaming v. Oglala Sioux Tribe (8th Cir. 1999). “” 25 C.F.R. § 533.3 (a)(2). In addition, the regulations mandate that any management contract that does not receive approval is void, and that any attempted modification of an approved contract that does not comply with the regulations and does not receive approval, is also void.”
— 25 C.F.R. § 533.3(e)(1) — 2 cases
Sharp Image Gaming, Inc. v. Shingle Springs Band Indians, 223 Cal. Rptr. 3d 362 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “" (25 C.F.R. 533.3(e)(1).) In our view, the failure to adhere to these procedural matters-which are required when a tribe submits management contracts for formal approval -had no impact on the Chairman's ultimate conclusion that the GMA and ELA are management contracts requiring…”
Sharp Image Gaming v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). “” (25 C.F.R. 533.3(e)(1).) In our view, the failure to adhere to these procedural matters—which are required when a tribe submits management contracts for formal approval—had no impact on the Chairman’s ultimate conclusion that the GMA and ELA are management contracts requiring…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.