above, the bankruptcy trustee’s rights arose in 2007, after the effective date of the 2007 Amendment. In contrast to the present case, in Dieter, an amended statute required the government to pay for any adverse judgment against its employees if the government defended or had the opportunity to defend its employee; under the prior version of the statute, the government could decline to indemnify the employee on the basis of public interest. See 576 F.3d at 696. The Seventh Circuit determined that the amended statute attached new consequences to past events because the government chose to defend the employees at trial before it knew that it would necessarily be on the hook for a possible adverse judgment. Id. at 696-97; see also State v. Pelley, 828 N.E.2d 915, 919-20 (Ind.2005) (<HOLDING>). Trying to apply the reasoning of Dieter to
holding that a statute that created a counselorclient privilege should not be retroactively applied to records created prior to the statute because of the presumption against retroactivity holding amendment to statute permitting administrative body to award up to 1000 in damages in discrimination cases applied retroactively because it created a supplemental remedy for enforcement of a preexisting right holding that a similar statute created separate offenses holding that a shortened statute of limitations should not be applied retroactively as to bar otherwise valid civil claims holding statute that extended statute of limitations for certain criminal sexual conduct could not be applied retroactively to a prosecution commenced after the limitations statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense had expired