ILNews

East Chicago-casino settlement up in air

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

"RICO case nets $108M in damages" IL March 17-30, 2010

Marion Superior Judge David Shaheed on April 19 declined to immediately decide on the state's request to set aside a partial settlement in a dispute about East Chicago casino revenues.

The Attorney General's Office objects to a lawsuit settlement filed between the City of East Chicago and for-profit company Second Century that received about $16 million in casino revenue since the late 1990s. The AG wants Judge Shaheed to set aside the settlement granted April 8, specifically because the city council had rejected the settlement in March with a 5-4 vote. If approved, the settlement would release about $8 million in remaining funds. Of that, 54 percent is to go to the city administration and 46 percent to Second Century owners. In addition, the casino revenue stream is being redirected to the city without any accounting of how the money's been spent so far or how it might be spent in the future.

This case is part of a larger investigation into public corruption in East Chicago, which so far has been highlighted by the AG's recent victory against former mayor Robert Pastrick and aides in a federal civil racketeering case. In March, a federal judge ordered that they pay $108 million. While this Second Century case is separate, it involves most of the same players and the casino revenue that's been a part of the entire line of litigation. The AG's Office says it was not consulted on the settlement between East Chicago and Second Century.

Briefs were due from both Second Century and the East Chicago Foundations April 23, and the state's reply is due May 3. Following those briefs being filed, the judge will take the arguments under advisement and may hold another hearing in May.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT