ILNews

Justices issue ruling in casino revenue case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled today on an ongoing appeal about how casino revenue is funneled to a for-profit organization in East Chicago, an issue that has also been raised in an ongoing federal racketeering suit in northern Indiana.

In its decision today in City of East Chicago v. East Chicago Second Century, et al., No. 49S02-0808-CV-00436, the justices went into great detail about which of the city's claims should survive dismissal, but more significantly they determined that any existing arrangements involving casino money can be altered only through administrative channels such as the Indiana Gaming Commission, which may incorporate advice from city officials and others on what it might "deem best for the future of East Chicago's residents."

The case is one of many appeals stemming from the casino operating agreements and license put in place during the 1990s, under former Mayor Robert Pastrick. At the time, the casino entered into a local development agreement with East Chicago where some of the casino revenue would flow to the city for development projects. That arrangement continued through 2005, when Pastrick was ousted and a new mayor began scrutinizing the casino revenue arrangements.

In 2005, Second Century sought a declaratory judgment that Resorts East Chicago would be required to continue the payments as required by a license from the Indiana Gaming Commission. Part of that stipulates the casino contributes 3.75 percent of its adjusted gross receipts - 1 percent to the city of East Chicago, 1 percent to the non-profit Twin City Education Foundation, 1 percent to the non-profit East Chicago Community Foundation, and 0.75 percent to the for-profit East Chicago Second Century Inc. Through June 2006, the Second Century group received about $16 million from the casino operation, according to the Indiana Supreme Court ruling.

A separate federal civil racketeering suit also raises these casino revenue issues, as they are connected to the former Pastrick administration that has been dubbed a "corrupt enterprise." Second Century and the foundations have recently asked to intervene in that five-year-old suit in federal court, but this state appellate ruling is not connected to that case.

Ruling on multiple issues, the Indiana justices found that then-Marion Superior Cale Bradford didn't err in dismissing several counts relating to breach of fiduciary duty; however, he did err in dismissing other claims. Specifically, justices ruled that the judge had erred in dismissing these claims outright: inducement of breach of fiduciary duty/participating in breach; breach of fiduciary duty; accounting; and two claims involving a declaratory judgment/return of public funds.

In deciding those issues and each claim, justices determined also that the city's argument that any fraudulent concealment of money should toll the statute of limitations.

"As respects those counts or parts of counts which we have held above should not survive Second Century's motion to dismiss, it is very difficult to see why equity ought to estop Second Century and the Foundations from asserting the statutes of limitation," Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard wrote. "The counts centered on attacking the formation and confirmation of the original agreements seek to challenge action taken ten or fifteen years ago in full glare of the public arena. It simply asks too much to embrace the idea that these were 'fraudulently concealed' from the City or anyone else."

On other counts, the Supreme Court found that the city doesn't have the authority to unilaterally terminate or alter the terms of the license issued by the Indiana Gaming Commission. That falls to the state commission and lawmakers, though the city is able to make periodic changes through the commission's administrative process.

Justice Brent Dickson concurred with several of the counts, but dissented with respect to aspects of Part III involving constructive fraud/unjust enrichment claim and how it addresses the other issues of the overall suit.

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT