Date post: | 16-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | allison-beavers |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 0 times |
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
Introduction to Gaming
Jennifer L. CarletonKate Lowenhar-Fisher
Association of Corporate Counsel LuncheonJune 29, 2010
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 2
A Very Brief History of Gambling in the United States
Gambling has been popular in the United States since colonial times (esp. racehorses, dice, card games and lotteries)
The original 13 colonies used lotteries to raise revenue and build some of the nation’s finest universities
For most of the 18th and 19th centuries, commercial gambling was illegal in the U.S., but it flourished anyway (esp. in the West)
Casino gambling was legalized for a brief period (1820’s-1830’s) in New Orleans
Nevada, which became a state in 1864, legalized commercial gambling operations in 1869, but there was no real regulation
In 1909, anti-gambling forces succeeded in outlawing commercial gambling. Just two years later, social games were legalized again
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 3
The Modern Era of Gambling
In 1931, construction on Hoover Dam begins, and Nevada legalizes commercial casinos. The modern era of casino gambling begins
There is no real regulation. Local officials issue licenses in exchange for fees paid per game. The fees are split among municipal, county and state coffers
In 1945, the first state license is required, and fees are based on the percentage of gaming win estimated by the Nevada Tax Commission
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 4
Unsavory Elements
Many of the first casinos in Las Vegas are financed by mobsters Perhaps the most famous is the Las Vegas Flamingo, which
Bugsy Siegel opens in 1947. Despite his extensive criminal record, Bugsy receives a gaming license
The Flamingo helps to make Las Vegas the destination for high rollers
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 5
The 1950’s: Criminal Crackdown
The Kefauver Committee (U.S. Senate) holds hearings to investigate the criminal influences on the gambling industry
The committee finds widespread evidence of criminal elements and “skimming”
The nation is on the verge of a federal prohibition on gambling
The committee’s findings lead to a crackdown on and cleanup of the casino industry
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 6
Nevada Regulatory Framework
Nevada creates the State Gaming Control Board in 1955. Licensing of a casino owner is a privilege revocable by the state
Nevada creates the Nevada Gaming Commission in 1959. The NGC is independent of the Nevada Tax Commission, and its primary function is to establish and administer gaming regulations. The NGC and GCB (the NGC’s enforcement arm) develop extensive application and investigation procedures to screen gaming license applicants
1967 and 1969: Nevada passes corporate gaming laws to eliminate obstacles to the direct involvement of corporations in the casino industry. Casino operators now have greater access to capital through legitimate debt and equity markets. Public companies may acquire casinos
1973: Harrah’s Entertainment is traded on the NYSE
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 7
State Regulation of Gambling
Up until 1976, the law governing commercial casino gambling in states outside Nevada is the criminal law
In 1976, a referendum passes in New Jersey
to legalize casinos in Atlantic City.
New Jersey becomes the second state
to legalize casino gambling.
The New Jersey Casino Control Act
passes in 1977, and the first New Jersey
casino, Resorts International, opens in 1978
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 8
Regulation Regulation Regulation
About 10 years later, many other states follow...
Every state has its own, unique regulatory framework
All state regulatory frameworks have in common the objective of ensuring the integrity of the gambling games and the suitability of those who control and operate commercial casinos
Rigorous internal controls (operational, accounting, etc.)
Comprehensive personal and financial background investigations of individuals associated with gaming
Local license required for gaming (and liquor)
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 9
Gambling in the U.S. Today
Some form of gambling is currently legal in almost every state. Gaming tax revenue!
Forms of legalized gambling include commercial casinos, pari-mutuel wagering, Native American casinos, racinos, charitable gaming and lotteries
Gambling over the Internet is a hot topic in the U.S. Although some debate still exists regarding whether certain federal laws prohibit all forms of interstate Internet gambling, it is the current view of the U.S. Department of Justice that all forms of interstate Internet gambling are illegal
bhfs.com 10
Indian Gaming Case Study – Intellectual Property License Agreement
▪ Representation of Nevada casino operator in negotiation of a License Agreement to rebrand the flagship resort property of a western Indian nation
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 11
Challenges
Negotiation with Tribal Subsidiary
Enforceability of Agreement
Federal Approval
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 12
Negotiation with Tribal Subsidiary
Corporation formed under Tribal law The Tribe operates its hotel and casino through a corporation formed under Tribal
law
The authority of the Tribal Corporation to negotiate and execute the License Agreement with the Nevada casino operator was unclear
Both parties to the License Agreement needed to address the possibility that changes in Tribal law could impact their available rights and remedies
Applicable Law/Organizational Documents Tribe’s Constitution
Gaming Compact between the Tribe and the State
Tribe’s Corporate Code
Tribal Corporation By-laws and Articles of Incorporation
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 13
Opinions of Counsel
License Agreement required Tribal Corporation’s General Counsel to opine that: The Corporate Board had authorized the execution of the License Agreement The Corporate Board possessed the authority to execute the License Agreement Execution of the License Agreement did not require the consent or authorization of the
Tribal Government Execution of the Agreement and performance under the Agreement by the Tribal
Corporation did not violate any Tribal laws, orders, or agreements No governmental consents were necessary for the Tribal Corporation to execute or
perform under the Agreement The choice of State law to govern the License Agreement did not violate Tribal law
License Agreement required the Tribe’s Counsel to opine that: There were no actions, suits, proceedings or investigations pending or threatened
against the Tribe affecting the ability of the Tribal Corporation to perform under the License Agreement
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 14
Changes in Tribal Law - Options
Noninterference Agreement to be executed by the Tribe, pursuant to which the Tribe would agree not to take any legislative action that would have an adverse effect on the Tribal Corporation’s ability to perform its obligations under the License Agreement, or which would materially impair the Licensor’s rights under the License Agreement
Contract provision addressing the effect of a change in Tribal law that prejudiced the Licensor’s rights under the License Agreement, including the right to payments due
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 15
Enforceability of Agreement
Indian Tribes and their wholly-owned subsidiaries enjoy sovereign immunity from suit, unless that immunity is waived
In order for the provisions of the License Agreement to be enforceable against the Tribal Corporation, the Tribe must waive the Corporation’s sovereign immunity from suit
Applicable Tribal law
Is the Corporate Board empowered to act independently to waive the Tribal Corporation’s immunity?
Are there any limitations or restrictions on the ability of the Tribe to waive the immunity of the Tribal Corporation? (i.e. choice of law or venue restrictions)
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 16
Waiver of Sovereign Immunity
Tribal Court
The Tribal Corporation could not be sued, even in the Tribe’s own courts, without a waiver of its sovereign immunity
Does the Tribe have a well-established trial and appellate court, as well as published case law?
Federal Court
A waiver of sovereign immunity that would allow for claims to only be brought in federal court is not likely to be enforceable
A Tribe is not a “citizen” of any state for purposes of diversity jurisdiction; however, the incorporation of a Tribal entity pursuant to state law can create diversity for purposes of federal jurisdiction
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 17
Waiver of Sovereign Immunity (cont’d)
Governing Law. “The License Agreement shall be governed by general contract law principles and commercial law as adopted in the State. Any claims permitted to be asserted under the limited waiver of sovereignty provisions of the License Agreement shall be adjudicated in, and each party hereby consents to jurisdiction and venue of, any federal court located within the State and, in the event federal courts do not have jurisdiction, then any State court where venue is proper.”
Waiver Authority. “The Council of the [Tribe] has authorized ________________ to negotiate and execute a limited waiver of sovereign immunity of [the Tribal Corporation] and the [Tribe] as it applies to the License Agreement within the parameters set forth above.”
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 18
Federal Approval
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) - 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701 - 2721
Congress vested the National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”) with broad authority to issue regulations in furtherance of the provisions of IGRA
All agreements related to Indian gaming must be reviewed by the NIGC
The relationship between the Licensor and the Licensee cannot be deemed by the NIGC to be a “management contract” or create an “impermissible proprietary interest”
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 19
Management Contracts
A management contract is defined under the NIGC regulations as “any contract, subcontract, or collateral agreement between an Indian tribe and a contractor or between a contractor and a subcontractor if such contract or agreement provides for the management of all or part of a gaming operation.”
Management contractors are subject to a determination of suitability by the NIGC, which involves a time-consuming, expensive and thorough investigation
There are mandatory provisions and substantial limitations, including fee limits, on management contracts contained in the Code of Federal Regulations
Management contracts that have not been approved by the NIGC are void
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 20
Management Contract Terms There is no definitive guidance on when an agreement that concerns the
operation of an Indian casino is considered a management contract
Those provisions to be avoided include supplying operating capital, the establishment of operating hours, the hiring, firing, training, and promoting of employees, the maintenance of the casino’s books and records, and the preparation of the casino’s financial statements and reports
Management contracts have a fee cap set a 30% of casino net revenues or 40% of net revenues if the capital investment required and the gaming operation's income projections justify the higher fee
The NIGC has stated that any entity that provides planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, or controlling services to an Indian gaming operation is deemed to be "managing" those gaming operations
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 21
Impermissible Proprietary Interest
The NIGC has taken the position that no entity other than a tribe may possess a "proprietary interest" in the tribe’s gaming activity
This determination is fact specific and there is little guidance from the NIGC on what constitutes a proprietary interest
While there is no prohibition on compensation for services based on a percentage of tribal gaming revenues, agreements containing such compensation provisions are subject to a high degree of scrutiny by the NIGC
Development, financing, and operational agreements that meet or exceed management contract caps have been found by the NIGC to be “excessive”
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 22
Delayed Effectiveness
After the License Agreement was executed and submitted to the NIGC, the NIGC provided commentary and proposed revisions
The NIGC would not discuss or negotiate any of the provisions of the License Agreement with the Licensor
The License Agreement did not become effective until the date the parties received written confirmation by an authorized representative of the NIGC indicating that the Agreement was not required to be approved by the NIGC
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 23
NIGC Revisions to License Agreement
The NIGC required amendments to the License Agreement, including:
Deletion of most of the Licensor’s approval rights, such as approval of a third-party management contractor and any of the Licensee’s standard operating procedures related to gaming
Specific limitations on the ability of the Licensor’s personnel to consult, assist, advise or direct the Licensee in any way with respect to matters involving gaming
Deletion of any reference to gaming procedures or systems
Addition of representations and warranties by the Licensor that it would not require the Licensee to modify or supplement any of its gaming-related management decisions or gaming-related operational procedures
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 24
Federal Approval
After the License Agreement was amended to the satisfaction of the NIGC, it issued a “declination letter” stating that the License Agreement was not a management contract and consequently not subject to review by the NIGC pursuant to IGRA
This was only the second time that the NIGC has approved an intellectual property license agreement for an Indian casino
bhfs.comBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 25
Our Contact Information
Jennifer L. Carleton Shareholder
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, NV 89106-4614
[email protected] tel 702.464.7086
fax 702.382.8135
Kate C. Lowenhar-Fisher
ShareholderBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600Las Vegas, NV 89106-4614
[email protected] 702.464.7013
fax 702.382.8135