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. § 533.7

Void agreements

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

Management contracts and changes in persons with a financial interest in or management responsibility for a management contract, that have not been approved by the Chairman in accordance with the requirements of part 531 of this chapter and this part, are void.

[74 FR 36936, July 27, 2009]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2022 · leading case: Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Ent. Corp., 547 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Ent. Corp., 547 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 6× “” 25 C.F.R. § 533.7 (2008). B. Factual Background In 1996, the Catskill Group entered into a series of contracts with the Tribe 6 for the purpose of building and operating a casino at a site adjacent to the Monticello Raceway.”
Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Lake of the Torches Econ. Dev. Corp., 658 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “§§ 2710 (d)(9), 2711(a)(1); 25 C.F.R. § 533.7 . Reasoning that the waiver of the Corporation’s sovereign immunity in the indenture was consequently also void, the district court dismissed the ease for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
MacHal, Inc. v. Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, 387 F. Supp. 2d 659 (W.D. La. 2005). · cites it 5× “25 C.F.R. § 533.7 (West 2005). Jena Band contacted the NIGC by letter in October of 1996 seeking a declination letter — which is essentially an opinion letter by the NIGC — stating that it does not believe that the Development Agreements require approval because it does not…”
First Am. Kickapoo Operations, L.L.C., a Nevada Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Multimedia Games, Inc., 412 F.3d 1166 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “1 Unapproved management contracts are void, 25 C.F.R. § 533.7 , and a gaming operation that violates any provision of the IGRA is subject to closure and fines of up to $25,000 per violation.”
Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Ent. Corp., 144 F. Supp. 2d 215 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). · cites it 3× “25 C.F.R. § 533.7 . See also International Gaming Network v.”
Bremer Bus. Fin. Corp. v. Whitney (In Re SRC Holding Corp.), 364 B.R. 1 (D. Minnesota 2007). · cites it 3× “§ 2711 and 25 C.F.R. § 533.7 . (TA 309.) Karns also explained: While it is our understanding that the terms of the loan from [Miller & Schroeder] to the St.”
Scutti Enter., LLC v. Park Place Ent. Corp. & Park Place Akwesasne Consulting Corp., 322 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2003). “2d at 232-33 ; see also 25 C.F.R. § 533.7 (2002). 3 . On appeal, Scutti does not argue that Park Place’s “purposes” were wrongful under the third condition for tortious interference with *216 business relations.”
Sharp Image Gaming, Inc. v. Shingle Springs Band Indians, 223 Cal. Rptr. 3d 362 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). · cites it 3× “are void" ( 25 C.F.R. § 533.7 ). 2 Once the NIGC determines, in a final agency action, that it possesses authority over a particular Indian gaming contract, that decision is entitled to binding and preclusive legal effect "unless and until" it is successfully challenged in a…”
Jena Band of Choctaw Indians v. Tri-Millennium Corp., 387 F. Supp. 2d 671 (W.D. La. 2005). · cites it 5× “25 C.F.R. § 533.7 (West 2005). In light of this, Jena Band contacted the NIGC by letter in October of 1996 seeking a declination letter — which is essentially an opinion letter by the NIGC — stating that it does not believe that the Development Agreements require approval…”
Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Ent. Corp., 154 F. Supp. 2d 696 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). “2d 215 (citing 25 C.F.R. § 533.7 ). See also 25 C.F.R. § 533.”
Missouri River Servs., Inc., a Delaware Corp. v. Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe, 267 F.3d 848 (8th Cir. 2001). “(citing 25 C.F.R. §§ 533.7 , 535.1(f)). 1 In this case, the parties do not dispute that the December 1987 agreement was subject to approval by the BIA as required by 25 U.”
Bremer Bus. Fin. Corp. v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP (In Re SRC Holding Corp.), 352 B.R. 103 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2006). · cites it 2× “On January 19, 1999, Earns sent an email to Rindels calling her attention to the fact that 25 C.F.R. § 533.7 requires that the Commission approve all management agreements with Indian Tribes, and also any “changes in persons with a financial interest in or management…”
Show all 34 citing cases →
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.