Within their 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 soveireignty.”

Within their 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 soveireignty.” Not just did bank regulators adequately expose the tribal creditors’ actions violated Connecticut banking statutes, but Pitkin penned, “in my view connected with legislation regarding […]