Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): only to effect the property and income of the Corporation. {11} Here, Plaintiff has offered no proof that a resolution was adopted by Defendant’s board of directors, and since Article VIII’s sue or be sued clause can only be made effective pursuant to the requirements set out in Section D of Article XVI, we conclude that no waiver was created. See Ninigret Dev. Corp., 207 F.3d at 30. {12} Plaintiff contends that federal law is clear that the simple appearance of a sue or be sued clause in the charters of Section 17 corporations serve as a general waiver of sovereign immunity. We disagree. Our review of the law indicates that a sue or be sued clause will only accomplish a waiver when the clause clearly expresses an intent to waive immunity. Parker Drilling Co., 451 F.Supp. at 1136-37 (<HOLDING>); S. Unique, Ltd. v. Gila River Pima-Maricopa 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the sue or be sued clause in corporate charter served as a waiver because the clause had no restrictions or limitations and was a clear explicit and unambiguous waiver (B) holding that limitation of liability clause was unambiguous (C) holding that the waiver in two previous contracts was insufficient to support waiver of the contract at issue in that appeal (D) holding that the word waiver is not required to waive a right even when a statute requires clear and unmistakable evidence of waiver (E) holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal
Output (English): holding that the word waiver is not required to waive a right even when a statute requires clear and unmistakable evidence of waiver