State Moves To Dismiss MGM Lawsuit Challenging New Tribal Casino Law

State Moves To Dismiss MGM Lawsuit Challenging New Tribal Casino Law



By Jon Lender

The state attorney general's office filed a motion in federal court Wednesday seeking to dismiss an August lawsuit filed by MGM Resorts, developer of a casino in Springfield, that challenges a new Connecticut law giving two Indian tribes the right to jointly develop a competing casino near the state line.

MGM claims the new law, passed by Connecticut legislators this year, violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause and the spirit of federal gaming regulations by giving the Mohegan and Mashantucket Pequot tribes the exclusive right to operate a third casino on private land in addition to their existing casinos on reservations in Uncasville and Ledyard.

But in the legal papers filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Hartford, the office of Attorney General George Jepsen said that the MGM lawsuit should be dismissed because the company hasn't been injured legally by the new Connecticut law. Thus, Jepsen's office said, MGM lacks legal "standing" to sue Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and other top state officials.

The new law – which establishes steps under which the two tribes would work cooperatively and negotiate with a municipality to open a casino on private land there – does not, by itself, authorize development and operation of such a casino, Assistant Attorney General Robert J. Deichert argued in his motion to dismiss. Once such an agreement was reached to build a casino in a Connecticut town or city, the General Assembly still would have to enact a new law to permit it outside a reservation, he said.

And so, he said, MGM has the option and legal right to embark on the same kind of preliminary efforts to negotiate to build a casino in a Connecticut town, pending legalization by the General Assembly, he argued.

The new Connecticut law "in no way excludes MGM from taking steps toward developing a Connecticut casino," he wrote. "To the contrary, MGM alleges that it has taken steps toward such a casino, and nothing in [the new law] precludes MGM from taking whatever additional steps it would like to take."

Deichert also attacked MGM's legal claim that it "is ready, willing and able to compete for an opportunity to develop a commercial casino gaming facility in Connecticut, but is excluded by [the new law] from competing for this opportunity."


The two tribes are now permitted by the state and federal governments to operate casinos on their reservations in southeastern Connecticut. Malloy and legislators announced when they authorized a new Indian casino this year that their sole purpose was to protect Connecticut jobs, specifically tribal casino employees, by giving northern Connecticut gamblers an alternative to traveling to Springfield.Deichert said that MGM is hampered by its own deal with the city of Springfield and state of Massachusetts – which prohibits MGM from building a casino within a 50-mile radius of Springfield. "Therefore, MGM is precluded from applying for a license for, managing, operating or having a financial interest in a casino located in most of Connecticut; the radius restriction covers all of Hartford, Tolland and Windham counties, and large portions of Litchfield, New Haven and Middlesex counties. It also covers much of New London county, which is home to the tribes' existing casinos."

Nevada-based MGM, which owns casino resorts throughout the country, claims that the Connecticut law discriminates on the basis of race or ethnicity against a spectrum of potential casino developers by limiting development rights to two federally recognized tribes. The law also violates the spirit of the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which limits tribal casinos to reservation land, the MGM lawsuit says.

"This special law prevents everyone else from competing or even from making an alternative proposal that could be of greater benefit to the state," MGM Resorts International President Bill Hornbuckle said in a statement in August.

Rep. Stephen D. Dargan, D-West Haven, co-chairman of the legislature's public safety committee, which oversees casinos, in August called the lawsuit "laughable."


http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-mgm-casino-connecticut-lawsuit-motion-dismiss-0924-20150923-story.html

Will CT keep sharing casino revenues with towns after the election?

By: Keith M. Phaneuf | May 7, 2014

 

The bill ends a requirement that cities and towns share in the proceeds from video slots from the two casinos in southeastern Connecticut.

For years, state law has said $135 million of the revenue from Foxwoods Resorts Casino and
Mohegan Sun should be shared with cities and towns. And for more than a decade, governors and legislatures have – year after year – suspended-but-not repealed that requirement, and then given communities about $62 million.

In fact, the new state budget that takes effect July 1 again gives municipalities $62 million out of $279 million in projected video slot receipts.

So why are Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the legislature now removing the $135 million requirement permanently from state statutes?

Because once the legal requirement to share $135 million is gone, nonpartisan fiscal analysts can no longer count it when calculating the deficit they are tracking in the first state budget after this fall’s state elections.

The 2015-16 fiscal year, according to analysts, has a built-in shortfall of $1.33 billion, or 8 percent. Without the required video slot sharing, that gap falls to about $1.2 billion, or 7 percent.


http://ctmirror.org/will-ct-keep-sharing-casino-revenues-with-towns-after-the-election/

Should Keno Come To Bars And Restaurants?

Should Keno Come To Bars And Restaurants?
by Tony Terzi
Reporter

Keno, a gambling game approved by the Connecticut General Assembly in June of 2013, may never see the light of day. That is if many of the same legislators, who pushed for it, are successful in having it repealed.

State Senator Kevin Witkos (R-Canton) is on the legislative committee that oversees gambling. He is among the Republicans accusing the Malloy administration of sneaking Keno in at the end of the 2013 session. The about face came after it was learned there would be a $500 million budget surplus.

“Remember, this is an election year. And, it’s not popular. So, why not do something that resonates with the voters in Connecticut,” said Witkos.

Witkos says Governor Malloy claimed Keno was not his idea. But, Witkos believes information he obtained, through a Freedom of Information request, illustrates otherwise.

“Emails from his office, his budget office, show that they provided the language for the legislature’s budget. So, he was aware a week before the rest of the legislature was aware that it was in the budget,” added Witkos.

If Keno does survive, on Capitol source tells Fox CT that it would not be for more than a year. One concern of opponents of additional gaming in Connecticut is exposing youth to gambling.

“Having grown up in Massachusetts, you can see young kids filling out the little tabs. And, though they can’t bring them up to get money, if someone should win, we’re teaching a gambling activity at a very young age,” says Mary Drexler of the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling.

Adam Osmond, of Farmington, is hoping Keno’s approval is repealed. The game would be rolled out in restaurants, bars and some convenience stores. Osmond lost the two convenience stores he owned because of a gambling addiction.

“My store sales went from $4,000 a week to $20,000 a week. And I was cashing tickets, and then playing back. And, cashing tickets and playing back,” said Osmond.


Read more: http://foxct.com/2014/03/04/should-keno-come-to-bars-and-restaurants/#ixzz2vPuTQw5I