from suits arising from their for-profit construction activities in Maryland. While the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes “is a necessary corollary to Indian sovereignty and self-governance,” Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, 476 U.S. 877, 890, 106 S.Ct. 2305, 90 L.Ed.2d 881 (1986), Alaska Native Corporations and their subsidiaries are not comparable sovereign entities, see Native Village of Stevens v. Alaska Management & Planning, 757 P.2d 32, 34 (Alaska 1988) (reviewing differences between Alaska Native groups and Indian tribes and holding most Alaska native groups lack immunity from suit because they are “not self-governing or in any meaningful sense sovereign”); see also Seldovia Native Ass’n v. Lujan, 904 F.2d 1335, 1350 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). In short, Indian tribal immunity does not
holding that waiver in a sue and be sued clause is limited to actions involving the corporate activities of the tribe and does not extend to actions of the tribe in its capacity as a political governing body holding that a statechartered corporation partially owned by an indian tribe was not a tribal agency holding that alaska native village corporation does not meet one of the basic criteria of an indian tribe because it is not a governing body holding that as a matter of federal law an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity holding that an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity