ILNews

Lauth distress over French Lick casino not over

From The
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Lauth Property Group may have ended its contentious battle with Bloomington billionaire Bill Cook this week to develop the $382 million French Lick casino and hotel project, but its real battle involving the Orange County resort may have just begun.

The Indianapolis-based developer still faces a breach-of-contract claim seeking $100 million by Chicago-based Merit Management, a hotel and casino developer. Merit and Lauth initially teamed up to develop the French Lick project but failed to obtain a gaming license. Lauth later paired with Cook.

Last month, Hamilton County Superior Judge Stephen Nation ruled that a contract existed between Lauth and Merit, clearing the way for a trial in Merit's pursuit of $100 million in damages against Lauth.

On Wednesday, Cook's team bought out Lauth's share in Orange County Holdings LLC, ending their contentious relationship that included accusations from Lauth that Cook's project managers were incompetent and drove up costs of the casino and hotel project. Last year, Lauth offered to buy out Cook's share in the project for nearly $200 million. Cook countered with a mere $5 million.

Whatever the amount, Merit may well have its eyes on claiming it under its litigation, said Ed Feigenbaum, publisher of Indiana Gaming Insight and Indiana Legislative Insight. "Lauth has added problems in that it's not resolved the Merit [litigation]," he said.

Some observers say Lauth likely walked away with a share of Orange County Holdings closer to the figure for which Cook offered to buy out Lauth. If so, that could be useful in limiting damages that could be collected by Merit if it were to prevail-so long as Lauth cut a deal with Cook that could provide the developer with future revenues, said one source who asked to not be identified.

Lauth officials aren't talking, other than to say the developer's goal "to develop and construct the Midwest's premier resort destination" was achieved, said spokesman Marc Lotter.

Edwin Broecker, a Sommer & Barnard attorney who represents Cook's Orange County group, said the Lauth settlement is a plus for the project.

"This was a great opportunity to have a single focus and vision for the project and how to build on the early momentum that's been there," Broecker said.

Remaining to be completed, Broecker said, is the resort's Pete Dye-designed golf course, which should be ready for play as early as next spring.

The Lauth-Cook partnership appeared problematic from the start, said Feigenbaum, noting the good will Cook has in Southern Indiana.

"It seems like Lauth essentially wanted out since Day One, when they realized they really weren't being treated as a 50-percent partner."
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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT