471 U.S. 759, 764, 105 S.Ct. 2399, 85 L.Ed.2d 753 (1985)(leasing procedures detailed by Congress intended to protect the Indians). In fact, the measure was passed in part because existing law was considered inadequate to give the Indians the greatest return from their property. S. Rep. No. 75-985 (1937). Other purposes in enacting the legislation were to achieve uniformity in tribal leasing and to increase Indian authority in granting leases. Id. In general, then, IMLA imposes upon the federal government a fiduciary obligation to develop a mineral leasing program which would provide the highest possible financial return to the Indians. Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United States, 9 Cl.Ct. 227, 238 (1985); Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma v. United States, 33 Fed.Cl. 464, 468 (1995)(<HOLDING>). These responsibilities fall upon the
holding that after jury findings of dual breach unchallenged finding that defendants breach was not excused based on prior material breach of plaintiff constituted implicit finding that there was no material breach by plaintiff holding that breach of a contract concerning payment of a debt furnishes no basis for the finding of a constructive trust recognizing 10th circuits finding of breach of trust recognizing that actions for a breach of trust lie in equity holding that a third party who receives trust property on inquiry notice that a trustee has misappropriated trust funds is also liable for breach of trust