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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT