ILNews

Settlement resolves casino money cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The six-year casino revenue litigation that sparked multiple lawsuits statewide, went to Indiana’s appellate courts multiple times, and led to legislative initiatives is coming to a close.

Under an executed settlement agreement, most of the litigation involving how East Chicago and various entities used the casino money will be resolved. East Chicago will receive $11.7 million originally designated for the for-profit East Chicago Second Century Inc. – which is now being dissolved. Payments to Second Century were halted by the Indiana Gaming Commission in 2006 after an investigation found the corporation was spending its small percentage of casino revenue on non-economic development, which went against the local development agreement enacted in the 1990s and was at the heart of this litigation.

Now, the 31 city properties that Second City owns will be transferred to the nonprofit Foundations of East Chicago, according to the settlement. The Foundations will receive $20 million, which is its share of the 2 percent of casino revenues under the 1994 Local Development Agreement. Those payments had been put on hold in 2007 after Foundations filed a lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of that deal.

A new local development agreement enacted in June following a settlement in that suit gives both the city and Foundations a percentage of the casino revenues to be spent on economic development, infrastructure, or public safety.

Second Century attorney J. Lee McNeely will receive $1.2 million for his years of work representing the entity, the agreement states.

According to the settlement, a total of five pending lawsuits will be resolved – Foundations v. East Chicago, No. 9D13-0705-PL-019348; Second Century v. Resorts, No. 49D01-0504-PL-014394; Second Century v. Indiana Gaming Commission, et al, No. 49D01-0606-CC-025440; Second Century v. Resorts, No. 49D01-0706-PL-022673; and City of East Chicago v. Indiana Gaming Commission, No. 49D05-1106-PL-022283.

In the past two years, the lines of litigation have gone up to the Court of Appeals several times – including two pending appeals – and the Indiana Supreme Court has issued three decisions delving into these local development agreement and casino-revenue related issues - Zoeller v. Second Century in April 13, 2009, City of East Chicago v. Second Century in June 2009, and Foundations of East Chicago v. East Chicago and State in May 2010.

With this settlement, the only outstanding claim will be one brought by the Indiana attorney general. The AG praised the agreement and said all the blame for the years of court battles fall onto former East Chicago Mayor Robert Pastrick and his administration for allowing economic development money to be paid to the for-profit Second Century. This litigation is not directly connected to the federal civil racketeering suit against Pastrick that last year resulted in a $108 million judgment against the former mayor and his top allies, but how the casino revenue agreements and how that money was spent became a part of those court arguments and led the AG to push for legislation seeking more transparency in how local development agreements are reached.

Rehearing "Second Century suit can proceed" IL Nov. 10-23, 2010

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