Wednesday, January 18, 2017

CA SUPREME COURT REFUSES to Recognize PAYDAY LENDERS as TRIBAL

CA Supremes say:  DON'T BRING that MESS around here. YOU are NOT TRIBAL   
According to the court, the test should consider the following five factors: "The entity's method of creation, whether the tribe intended the business entity to share its immunity, the entity's purpose, the tribe's control over the entity and the financial relationship between the tribe and entity."
It was found that the tribes' business entities did not satisfy all five points of the test, and therefore could not be recognized as arms of the tribe.
Most significantly, it was revealed that the financial impact from the tribal entities was minimal and that the entities were not sufficiently exercising control over their lending operations.
But minimal financial contributions and poor supervision in regards to loan decisions weren't the only factors at play – according to Cariello. One of the entities' hired management companies was allowed to spend business funds at will. These findings mean that points four and five of the test were not met.
In addition, Cariello wrote in a blog post that the entities' initial start-up money and intellectual property did not come from the tribes themselves, but from non-tribal corporations. These items did not satisfy the functionality/practical aspect of the court's test, which led to the decision to deny tribal immunity from the state lawsuit.
Cariello said the test wasn't designed specifically for this case, and it's also not the first time these factors have been used in court decisions.
at

1 comment:

  1. AnonymousJanuary 18, 2017 at 3:40 PM

    Oh my! The CA Supreme Court has thrown the door open! Just look at the definition of a tribal enterprise protected by immunity. The tribe must control the entity, and the financial relationship between the tribe and the entity.

    Watch out Pala Gaming Authority (PGA). Does the PBMI General Council have any input, knowledge or control over your actions? Is there a financial relationship between the PGA and the Band? Did the tribe (Band) intend that the Pala Gaming Authority share its immunity, or did the PGA just declare itself to be immune without any actual resolution or declaration from the PBMI?

    And how was the PGA created? Was there a resolution from the PBMI General Council creating the PGA? Or was it an afterthought embedded in a defunct Gaming Ordinance between the PBMI and a former management entity?

    The answers to these question are obvious.

    ReplyDelete