immunity. The parties did, however, sign a waiver provision whereby both parties waived all immunities. MBF believed that CNI obtained the required approval for this waiver provision — but regardless of what MBF may have thought, board approval was not obtained, and CNI’s charter controls. In short, without board approval, CNI’s sovereign immunity remains intact. 3. Equitable Doctrines MBF also argues that even without board approval, CNI waived sovereign immunity based on equitable doctrines because CNI signed the agreement representing that it waived sovereign immunity. We disagree. Courts have held that unauthorized acts of tribal officials are insufficient to waive tribal-sovereign immunity. See Native Am. Distrib. v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co., 546 F.3d 1288, 1295 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 243 F.3d
holding the americans with disabilities act not to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity and declaring congress abrogates tribal immunity only where the definitive language of the statute itself states an intent either to abolish indian tribes common law immunity or to subject tribes to suit under the act recognizing that under texas law governmental immunity embraces two principles immunity from liability and immunity from suit recognizing that tribes have an interest in a uniform body of federal law in the area of tribal immunity holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit holding that tribal entity was not equitably estopped from asserting immunity because misrepresentations of the tribes officials or employees cannot affect its immunity from suit