Wells Fargo Takes Another Run At Lac Du Flambeau Tribal Bond Lawsuit
When the Lac du Flambeau Tribe fell behind on repaying $50 million in bonds that financed its casino in northern Wisconsin, bond issuer Wells Fargo asked a federal judge to appoint a receiver to run the casino and increase payments on the debt service. After having its lawsuit dismissed in federal court on the basis of the bond agreement being an unauthorized management contract, the bank has made a motion to amend its original Complaint.
Wells Fargo respectively submits that the Court’s dismissal was contrary to Seventh Circuit precedent as well as fundamental fairness and basic due process because: (i) Wells Fargo was not granted leave to amend its Complaint to demonstrate that the defendant had waived sovereign immunity; and (ii) Wells Fargo was not permitted to present evidence and argument regarding whether the Trust Indenture was a “management contract” under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) and its related regulations or to respond to defendant’s evidence.
Wells Fargo’s proposed amended Complaint alleges 14 causes of action against the Tribe, including breach of contract, reformation of the bonds and the indenture, restitution, unjust enrichment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and conversion. A copy of the amended Complaint can be accessed HERE. The amended Complaint asks the court to grant the following relief against the Tribe and in favor of Wells Fargo:
(1) Enter a judgment against the Defendant on each Count of the Complaint and
identified above;
(2) Order Defendant to pay Plaintiff such damages as have been sustained in
consequence of Defendant’s wrongful actions;
(3) Enter a declaratory judgment on the Bonds that Defendant has repudiated and breached the Bonds and is obligated to pay the full amount of principal and
interest;
(4) Enter a declaratory judgment that the principal and interest on the Bonds has been accelerated pursuant to the terms of the Trust Indenture;
(5) Order Defendant to pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees;
(6) Reform the Indenture and the Bonds to the extent necessary to conform with the Parties’ intent; and
(7) Order Defendant to provide restitution to Plaintiff in an amount to be determined by the Court.



