AG objects to East Chicago settlement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Attorney General has filed an objection to a City of East Chicago deal with Second Century, a for-profit company that has received casino money, that would settle a lawsuit between the parties.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller took the legal action Friday to prevent the settlement between East Chicago administration and Second Century Inc. from taking effect. Mayor George Pabey wants to settle the lawsuit - in which the AG is also a party - with Second Century that would require the for-profit company to account for $16 million in casino revenue it's received from the East Chicago riverboat casino since the company was created during former Mayor Robert Pastrick's administration. Nearly $8 million is currently in an escrow account. Second Century hasn't divulged how the money has been used.

The settlement would release the money in escrow, with 54 percent going to city administration and 46 percent to Second Century's owners. It wouldn't include accounting of casino revenue that has been spent so far nor any transparency in the future.

East Chicago City Council rejected the settlement last month, but the Pabey administration and Second Century jointly filed an agreed stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit April 6 in Marion Superior Court, purporting to dismiss the city's claims without the council's approval.

The court granted East Chicago and Second Century's stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. Zoeller objects to the settlement because as a plaintiff in the suit, the attorney general's office wasn't consulted about the settlement and does not agree with it. He claims the dismissal will allow the escrow funds to be distributed to Second Century, which would severely prejudice the claims that form the basis of the AG's action.

The court has yet to rule on the attorney general's motions.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.