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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. All the lawyers involved in this don't add up to a hill of beans; mostly yes-men punching their tickets for future advancement. REMF types. Window dressing. Who in this mess was a real hero? the whistleblower that let the public know about the torture, whom the US sent to Jail. John Kyriakou. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/ex-officer-for-cia-is-sentenced-in-leak-case.html?_r=0 Now, considering that Torture is Illegal, considering that during Vietnam a soldier was court-martialed and imprisoned for waterboarding, why has the whistleblower gone to jail but none of the torturers have been held to account? It's amazing that Uncle Sam's sunk lower than Vietnam. But that's where we're at. An even more unjust and pointless war conducted in an even more bogus manner. this from npr: "On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier." Today, the US itself has become lawless.

  2. "Brain Damage" alright.... The lunatic is on the grass/ The lunatic is on the grass/ Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs/ Got to keep the loonies on the path.... The lunatic is in the hall/ The lunatics are in my hall/ The paper holds their folded faces to the floor/ And every day the paper boy brings more/ And if the dam breaks open many years too soon/ And if there is no room upon the hill/ And if your head explodes with dark forbodings too/ I'll see you on the dark side of the moon!!!

  3. It is amazing how selectively courts can read cases and how two very similar factpatterns can result in quite different renderings. I cited this very same argument in Brown v. Bowman, lost. I guess it is panel, panel, panel when one is on appeal. Sad thing is, I had Sykes. Same argument, she went the opposite. Her Rooker-Feldman jurisprudence is now decidedly unintelligible.

  4. November, 2014, I was charged with OWI/Endangering a person. I was not given a Breathalyzer test and the arresting officer did not believe that alcohol was in any way involved. I was self-overmedicated with prescription medications. I was taken to local hospital for blood draw to be sent to State Tox Lab. My attorney gave me a cookie-cutter plea which amounts to an ALCOHOL-related charge. Totally unacceptable!! HOW can I get my TOX report from the state lab???

  5. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

ADVERTISEMENT