Subscribe to The Big Squeeze Subscribe to The Big Squeeze's comments

Archive for the ‘Lucky Nugget Casino’ category



A United States appeals court ruled in support of resort operator EPR Resorts, formerly called EPT Concord. The organization looks after the construction and procedure of the Montreign Resort into the Adelaar area in ny that could host the casino that is montreign. The court ruling had been against property designer Louis Cappelli and Concord Associates.

Back 1999, the designer’s Concord Associates bought a 1,600-acre site intending to construct a casino resort. In 2007, the entity needed capital of $162 million, which it borrowed through the previous EPT. In order to secure its loan, it utilized vast majority of its property as collateral.

Although Concord Associates failed to repay its loan, it might proceed using its plan for the launch of a casino but for a smaller slice regarding the previously bought site. Yet, it had to finance its development by means of a master credit contract, under which any construction loan should have been guaranteed in full by Mr. Cappelli himself.

Concord Associates failed in this, too, plus in 2011 proposed to issue a high-yield relationship totaling $395 million. EPT refused and Concord Associates brought the matter to court arguing that their proposition complied utilizing the contract between the two entities.

EPT, on the other hand, introduced its own plans for the establishment of a casino resort. The gambling center will be run by gambling operator Empire R Read more »



A November New York State casino referendum for voters has one lawyer questioning the ballot’s wording

In November, New York voters are scheduled to vote for a referendum that would allow several new https://casino-bonus-free-money.com/lucky-nugget-casino/ casino resorts become built throughout the state. But if one Brooklyn attorney is successful, that referendum will be halted due to language into the ballot question he claims violates state law.

Referendum Language Questioned

The language in the referendum includes a number of ‘legislative purposes’ that paint the proposal in an unmistakably positive light. For example, the question mentions ‘promoting work growth, increasing aid to schools and allowing neighborhood governments to lower property taxes.’ That language was approved by the State Board of Elections in July.

But now, lawyer Eric J. Snyder is contending that the language in the bill violates New York legislation. According to case filed in the nyc State Supreme Court, Snyder alleges that the language violates the State Constitution’s prohibition on making use of general public money in the aid of ‘private undertakings.’

‘The Constitution is pretty clear that you cannot use general public cash to sway or influence a vote,’ Snyder said.

Snyder isn’t the only one who has brought up difficulties with the language within the referendum. Many government watchdog groups also view it as one-sided, and religious groups have also noted the language used whenev Read more »