Newly disclosed filings from the PGCB related to the Bally’s Nittany Mall casino project suggest Lubert’s finances were not unknown. The state gaming agency has been aware all along that the $10 million the state agency received from Lubert within two days of the September 2020 auction wasn’t only Lubert’s cash. In the legal documents, officials with the PGCB repeatedly refer to Lubert as having “funding.”<\/p>\n
\nIt is admitted that Mr. Lubert had other sources of funding for the bid, though Mr. Lubert paid the bid himself via a wire transfer from his personal bank account,” PGCB counsel wrote in response to Cordish’s petition for review.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Casino.org <\/i>sought an explanation from the PGCB on the matter and was told that there’s been some confusion around how the winning bid must be paid to the state. The state’s legal team said it is the board’s position that the Gaming Act allows bids and projects to have financial backers, so long as the funds used are subject to clear agreements and that the investors involved are vetted.<\/p>\n\nIt is the position of the Board that the Act provides no explicit restrictions on how a winning bidder funds the winning bid, with the caveat that the source of any such funds used are always part of the pre-licensure investigation and can (and often times will) result in the licensure of financial backers as principals to the project,” a brief from the PGCB previously filed in the case explained.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
“Nothing in the Gaming Act mandates the winning bidder in a Category 4 auction to use his personal funds — or a loan obtained by him, personally — to pay the winning bid amount,” the brief added.<\/p>\n
Gaming Act Language<\/b><\/h2>\n
The Gaming Act indeed says nothing about a Cat. 4 high bidder being required to pay the bid alone.<\/p>\n
\n
Under Section 12.1 of the Gaming Act — Cat. 4 “Auction Procedures” — the law reads, “The winning bidder shall pay to the Board the bid amount within two business days following the auction. Payment shall be by cashier’s check, certified check, or any other method acceptable to the Board.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
And under “Financial Backer Information,” the Gaming Act reads, “The Board shall require an applicant for a terminal operator license to produce the information, documentation, and assurances as may be necessary to establish by clear and convincing evidence the integrity of all financial backers, institutional investors, investors, mortgagees, bondholders, and holders of indentures, notes, or other evidence of indebtedness, either in effect or proposed.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB) remains engulfed in a legal dispute over the Category 4 casino license it awarded in January to SC Gaming OpCo, LLC. SC Gaming OpCo is an entity controlled by Pennsylvania businessman Ira Lubert. A Penn State alumnus and former university trustee, Lubert has partnered with the Bally’s Corporation to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":269806,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[60,13592],"tags":[81998,83460,84036,84530,82667,45,83907,84035],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board Clarifies Cat. 4 Casino Bidding<\/title>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n