The Massachusetts High Court has instructed a subordinate court to scrutinize the “highly uncommon” actions of the state’s Gaming Commission in granting Wynn Resorts a permit to operate a gambling establishment within the state.
The court’s decision is a reaction to a legal action initiated against the regulatory body by FBT Everett Realty, which commenced in 2016 and originated from a property transaction between FBT Everett and Wynn Resorts.
Wynn and FBT Everrett entered into an agreement that provided Wynn with the right to acquire a portion of land from Everett, upon which Wynn intended to construct a casino. Nevertheless, Wynn’s fulfillment of its purchase commitment was dependent on its receipt of a casino license from the Commission.
However, FBT Everett asserted that the Commission “illegally coerced Wynn by informing them that they would only receive a license if they renegotiated the option agreement to lower the purchase price from $75 million to $35 million.” The $35 million figure was determined based on an assessment of the land’s “most advantageous non-casino utilization.”
Due to grievances voiced, the panel concluded that FBT Everett ought not to receive a “casino use bonus” from the land transaction. The panel declared that if Wynn permitted FBT Everett to obtain the bonus, Wynn’s licensing application might be “jeopardized.”
Consequently, the firm asserts that it experienced a $40 million loss as a result of the panel’s actions. Furthermore, FBT Everett believes that the bonus’s worth was actually transferred from itself to Wynn.
As a consequence, FBT Everett initiated legal action against the panel, alleging illegal interference with contracts and regulatory appropriation. This is defined as when regulations restrict the use of property to such an extent that the property owner is essentially deprived of all economically justifiable uses or value of their property.
The case initially commenced in the Superior Court division but was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court. The Superior Court dismissed the illegal interference claim – it declared that this principle doesn’t apply to public entities like regulatory agencies – and the regulatory appropriation claim, through summary judgment before a full trial.
The Supreme Judicial Court concurred with the illegal interference claim. However, concerning regulatory appropriation, it stated that the matter could not be resolved through summary judgment.
It discovered that the panel “commenced to concentrate on and investigate whether there was concealed criminal ownership in FBT.”
In particular, authorities suspected Charles Lightbody, a criminal with organized crime connections, held concealed stock in FBT.
They thought this played a significant part in their choice to influence Wynn to reduce the land value.
Specifically, FBT Everett asserted the commission’s actions were mainly based on “their belief that FBT executives were not being honest and were hindering the inquiry,” although regulators refuted this.
The court declared, “Considering the evidence in the most favorable light for FBT, the commission’s actions through pressuring a third party, Wynn, led to a $40 million reduction in the value of FBT’s property.” “Given that this represents a value decrease of over 50%, the financial impact of the commission’s actions was substantial.”
Moreover, the court observed that the commission’s actions were “highly atypical.”
The court declared, “When faced with someone with a criminal history who had unrevealed ownership of land that a casino license applicant intended to buy for development, the commission did not pursue the investigation until they could be certain that there was no undisclosed criminal ownership.”
The judicial body stated that it was unable to ascertain whether the group “directed” Wynn to pay only $35 million, or “merely acknowledged it as a solution to worries about unrevealed criminal ownership stakes.”
However, the court concluded that there was sufficient justification to suspect a regulatory seizure, preventing the dismissal of FBT Everett’s case through a summary judgment.
As a result, it instructed the Superior Court to continue with “additional proceedings” to thoroughly assess whether the committee engaged in a regulatory taking.
This decision arrives shortly after Steve Wynn, the founder of Wynn Resorts, became the target of a legal action by the U.S. Department of Justice, accusing him of acting as an unregistered foreign representative for the Chinese government.
The legal action asserts that between June 2017 and August 2017, Wynn engaged in discussions with then-President Donald Trump and members of his administration regarding a businessman who had departed China in 2014. Wynn allegedly proposed that the individual be expelled or have their visa revoked. Subsequently, they were accused of corruption by Chinese authorities.
Steve Wynn stepped down from Wynn Resorts in 2018 following accusations of sexual harassment, which he has refuted.
Sign up for the iGaming newsletter.
