“shall have power to: * * * [s]ue and be sued in all courts and participate, as a party or otherwise, in any judicial, administrative, arbitrative or other proceeding, in its corporate name”. Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, sec. 122 (2011) (emphasis added). Uniband does not explain what might trump this statutory provision. Moreover, Uniband was established as a Delaware corporation in 1987 by TMBCI and a third party not affiliated with TMBCI, and for three years TMBCI held only 51% of Uniband. Thus, TMBCI did not establish Uniband by itself; at its inception Uniband was simply a business owned in part by TMBCI and was clearly “a separate corporate entity created [in part] by the tribe”. Dillon, 144 F.3d at 583; see also Myrick v. Devils Sioux Mfg. Corp., 718 F. Supp. 753, 755 (D.N.D. 1989) (<HOLDING>). Uniband has not shown us how TMBCI’s
holding that offreservation casino owned and operated by tribe was arm of the tribe and therefore was entitled to sovereign immunity holding that the term indian tribe under the ada is broad enough to encompass a school board a nonprofit state corporation where the tribe used the board to manage a tribal school holding that a tribal housing authority established by tribal council pursuant to its powers of selfgovernment was a tribal agency rather than a separate corporate entity created by the tribe holding that florida does not have jurisdiction in a suit by other persons against an indian tribe absent express waiver of tribal sovereign immunity holding that a statechartered corporation partially owned by an indian tribe was not a tribal agency