gaming – Page 38 – Turtle Talk

An excerpt:

At issue in this appeal is a claims bar order entered in an adversary proceeding connected with the bankruptcy of Greektown Holdings, LLC. The appellants, the Papases and Gatzaroses, and two of the appellees, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and the Kewadin Casinos Gaming Authority, are defendants in a fraudulent transfer action that was brought in federal bankruptcy court by Buchwald Capital Advisors, LLC. Buchwald Capital Advisors is the trustee of the Greektown Litigation Trust and an appellee in this appeal. The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe and the Kewadin Casinos Gaming Authority agreed to settle with Buchwald Capital Advisors. However, they conditioned the settlement upon the entry of an order that would bar any claims against them “arising out of or reasonably flowing from” either the fraudulent transfer proceeding or the allegedly fraudulent transfers themselves. The Papases and Gatzaroses objected to this requested order, but when they could not come up with any viable claims that would be enjoined by the bar order, the district court approved the settlement and entered the bar order. A short time later, the Papases and Gatzaroses filed a motion for reconsideration in which they detailed additional claims that they feared might be barred by the order. The district court denied their motion.

On appeal, the Papases and Gatzaroses argue that the bar order was improper and also contend that the district court abused its discretion when it denied their motion for reconsideration. The district court was clearly acting within its discretion when it denied the motion for reconsideration, so we affirm its order denying reconsideration. But the bar order itself raises several interesting questions of first impression in this Circuit. These questions concern the district court’s jurisdiction and power to enter the bar order and the proper scope of such an order. Unfortunately, these issues have not been adequately briefed and argued by the parties and were not addressed below. We therefore remand this case to the district court and instruct the district court to reevaluate the bar order under the guidance provided in this opinion.

Seneca Nation Looking at Fourth Gaming Facility Near Rochester

August 21, 2013Kate Fort

Story here.

KG Urban v. Patrick Update — Matter Not Moot

August 19, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are updated materials in KG Urban v. Patrick (D. Mass.):

DCT Order Denying MTD

Motion to Dismiss

KG Urban Opposition

Amended complaint here.

Judge Frizzell Grants TRO, Stopping UKB Trust Acquisition

August 13, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the minute order (no opinion yet):

Minute order

Briefs are here.

News is here.

NLRB Sixth Circuit Brief in LRB v. NRLB

August 12, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

2013-08-12 NLRB Brief for Respondent

Opening brief and amicus briefs are here.

Briefs in Cherokee Nation TRO Request re: UKB Trust Land Acquisition

August 12, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here are the updated materials in Cherokee Nation v. Jewell (N.D. Okla.):

Cherokee Nation TRO Motion

Interior Opposition

UKB Opposition

Cherokee Nation Reply

News coverage here.

Prior post here.

Update in Sharp Image Gaming v. Shingle Springs Miwok

August 12, 2013August 11, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The United States has filed an amicus curiae brief confirming that the trial court erred in disregarding the NIGC’s action. The United States confirmed that the state courts are required to defer to the agency’s views, as expressed in an NIGC opinion letter, the Chairman’s decision disapproving the agreement, and in the United States’ amicus brief, itself:

[T]he Superior Court was obliged to exercise its jurisdiction consistent with IGRA and IGRA’s bar on the enforcement of unapproved management contracts. Instead of acknowledging this bar and the need to resolve whether the ELA was an unapproved management contract (consistent with deference principles), the Superior Court simply denied the Tribe’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Chairman’s 2009 Disapproval was not “final agency action” binding on the state court. . . .

This is a non sequitur. A final disapproval decision by the NIGC is not necessary to render an unapproved management contract void. Such contract is and remains void unless and until the NIGC takes formal action to approve the contract. 25 C.F.R. §§ 533.1(a), 533.7. The NIGC’s disapproval of the ELA merely preserved the legal status quo. Thus, even if the 2009 Disapproval was invalid due to procedural errors – a question over which the Superior Court had no jurisdiction (see infra) – a ruling setting aside the NIGC’s decision would not resolve the preemption question.

. . .

[T]he present case involves the NIGC’s determination on a threshold legal issue involving an interpretation and application of the NIGC regulation defining “management contract.” The NIGC expressed its regulatory interpretation in the 2009 Disapproval and the 2007 OpinionLetter (as well as in the present amicus brief). The NIGC is entitled to deference in the interpretation of its own regulations, even when such interpretation is not rendered in a formal rulemaking or other final agency action.

Here is the United States’ brief and the parties’ briefs in response:

United States’ Amicus Brief

Sharp’s Response to United States’ Amicus Brief

Tribe’s Response to United States’ Amicus Brief

The merits briefs are here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Conviction of Former Chukchansi CEO for Fraud and Theft from a Tribal Gaming Establishment

August 7, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Livingston. An excerpt:

The panel affirmed convictions for mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) and theft by an officer or employee of a gaming establishment on Indian lands (18 U.S.C. § 1168(b)).

The panel held that the location of the gaming establishment is not an element of the offense under § 1168(b), and that the allegations in the indictment were sufficiently specific to apprise the defendant of the specific offenses with which he was charged.

The panel also held that the district court’s jury instructions correctly defined “intent to defraud,” and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting prior acts evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).

Here are the materials:

Livingston Opening Brief

US Answer Brief

Livingston Reply

Lower court materials here, here, here, and here.

Jeff Livingston was also the gaming manager at Grand Traverse Band.