In Surgicraft Limited v Paradigm Biodevices Inc 2010 EWHC 1291 (Ch.), England’s High Court recently extended the “unilateral mistake” principle earlier enunciated in JJ Huber (Investments) Limited v The Private DIY Co. Limited [1995] NPC 102, to hold that an “entire agreement” clause in a contract does not operate to prevent the court from rectifying an agreement to correct a “common mistake” made by the parties. Now, when there has been either a unilateral or a common mistake and a written contract document does not accurately set forth the parties’ entire agreement, a court may be asked to “rectify” the agreement to correct that mistake and reflect the parties’ actual intentions even if the contract contains an entire agreement clause. (In the United States, this concept is generally referred to in equity as “reformation” of the contract and is similarly based on fraud, mutual mistake of the parties, or unilateral mistake of which the other knew or suspected, and where the resulting contract does not truly express the intention of the parties.

As we reported in a previous Client Alert, full payment of all applicable Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2010 must be received no later than today, August 31, 2010, at the Commission’s St. Louis, Missouri address by 11:59 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.

Native American tribes have become major economic players in recent years. Tribal enterprises generated more than $26 billion in 2009 from gaming revenue alone, and tribes are increasingly diversifying their economies to include new industries. Besides gaming, tribes are involved in real estate, banking and project finance, insurance, telecommunications, manufacturing, natural resource extraction and alternative energy development, among many other activities. As tribes expand beyond gaming, there are more chances for tribes and non-Native companies to do business together—and the unique legal status of tribes presents both opportunities and challenges for such partnerships.