1 1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY 2 CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 5 PUBLIC MEETING NO. 09-03-04 6 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 9 Wednesday, March 4, 2009 10 Atlantic City Commission Offices 11 Joseph P. Lordi Public Meeting Room - First Floor 12 Tennessee Avenue and Boardwalk 13 Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401 14 10:39 a.m. to 4:25 p.m. 15 16 17 Certified Court Reporter: Darlene Sillitoe 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19 20 ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING, LLC 21 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS AND VIDEOGRAPHERS 22 1125 ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 416 23 ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY 08401 24 (609) 345-8448 www.accourtreporting.com 25 2 1 2 CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION: LINDA M. KASSEKERT, CHAIR 3 MICHAEL C. EPPS, VICE CHAIR MICHAEL A. FEDORKO, COMMISSIONER 4 WILLIAM T. SOMMELING, COMMISSIONER 5 PRESENT FOR THE CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION: 6 DARYL W. NANCE, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST DANIEL J. HENEGHAN, PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER 7 OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL: 8 DIANNA W. FAUNTLEROY, GENERAL COUNSEL/EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 9 LEONARD J. DiGIACOMO, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL DENIS J. CORBETT, SENIOR COUNSEL 10 ROBERT A. MONCRIEF, COUNSEL TRACY E. RICHARDSON, COUNSEL 11 CLAIRE FRANK, PROGRAM MANAGER BERNADETTE T. FRIGEN, PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 12 DIVISION OF GAMING ENFORCEMENT: 13 DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL 14 BRIAN C. BISCIEGLIA, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TIMOTHY C. FICCHI, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 15 MARY JO FLAHERTY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES FOGARTY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 16 R. LANE STEBBINS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 A P P E A R A N C E S : 2 ITEM NO. 4 DENIS J. CORBETT, SENIOR COUNSEL R. LANE STEBBINS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 3 TIMOTHY J. LOWRY, JR. ESQ. FOR: MARINA ASSOCIATES 4 JOSEPH CORBO, ESQ. FOR: MARINA DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMPANNY 5 ITEM NO. 7 TRACY E. RICHARDSON, COUNSEL 6 MARY JO FLAHERTY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TIMOTHY J. LOWRY, JR. ESQ. 7 FOR: HARRAH'S ENTITIES 8 ITEM NO. 8 ROBERT A. MONCRIEF, COUNSEL TIMOTHY C. FICCHI, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 9 FREDERICK T. CUNNINGHAM, ESQ. FOR: TRUMP PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LLC 10 ITEM NO. 11 LEONARD J. DiGIACOMO, ASSISTANT GENERAL 11 COUNSEL MARY JO FLAHERTY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 12 STERNS & WEINROTH, PC PAUL M. O'GARA, ESQ. 13 FOR: COLUMN FINANCIAL, INC., TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC. 14 WOLF BLOCK GILBERT BROOKS, ESQ. 15 FOR: RESORTS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING NO. 09-03-04 2 MARCH 4, 2009, 10:39 a.m. ITEM PAGE VOTE 3 1 Ratification of the minutes of the 8 8 February 18, 2009, meeting minutes 4 2 Applications for employee and casino service industry licenses: 5 14 initial and/or renewal of casino key 8 9 and casino employee licenses 6 2 initial and/or renewal of casino key 9 10 and casino employee licenses 7 Application of Lake Shore Studios, Inc. 9 9 Casino service industry license renewal 10 10 8 application pursuant to NJSA 5:12-92(c) for Agate Construction Company, Inc. 9 Application for initial and renewal of casino key employee licenses and for qualification: 10 Craig D. Keyser, Executive Vice President 11 11 of Human Resources for Trump Taj Mahal 11 Associates, LLC Christine M. Tartaglio, Vice President of 11 11 12 Human Resources for Adamar of New Jersey, Inc. 3 Stipulations of settlement and consent 13 agreements: a) Mary Kay Whitaker (08-0874-EA) 12 13 14 b) John L. Dixon, III (08-0554-ER) 12 13 c) Betty J. Giddins (08-0345-ER) 12 13 15 d) Gustavo Cruz (08-0712-RC) 12 13 e) Scott T. Eldridge (08-0816-NC) 12 13 16 4 Stipulations of settlement in State v. Marina Associates (d/b/a Harrah's Marina 13 15 17 Hotel and Casino) (08-0518-VC) Marina Associates (d/b/a Harrah's Marina 15 16 18 Hotel and Casino) (08-0719-VC) Marina District Development Company, 16 18 19 LLC, (d/b/a Borgata Hotel, Casino & Spa) (08-0648-VC) 20 5 Applications for suspension: a) Jermaine M. Baskerville, (09-0041-RC) 18 31 21 Sworn 19 b) Victoria Dorsey (08-0404-RC) 31 32 22 6 Preliminary hearings concerning the 32 45 exclusion of Erickson Urtecho (a/k/a 36 52 23 Urtecho-Miralda) (08-0717-EL) Sworn 45 24 25 5 1 CONTINUED AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING NO. 09-03-04 2 MARCH 4, 2009, 10:39 a.m. ITEM PAGE VOTE 3 7 Petition of Harrah's Entertainment, 36 39 Inc., Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., 4 Harrah's Atlantic City Operating Company, LLC, Showboat Atlantic City Operating 5 Company, LLC, Bally's Park Place, Inc., and Boardwalk Regency Corp, for waiver of 6 the qualification requirements of a corporate office (Vice President of Sales) (PRN 9480907) 7 8 Petition of Trump Plaza Associates, LLC 39 40 (d/b/a Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino) for 8 an amendment to is operation certificate (PRN 0440903) 9 9 Consideration of the qualification of 41 43 Harry Hagerty, III, to serve as a member 10 of the Board of Directors of Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. 11 10 Petition of the Trustee and Conservator adj. for Adamar of New Jersey, Inc., to modify 12 CCC Order No. 08-06-30-1 with regard to the Engagement agreement with Moelis & Company, 13 LLC, (PRN 0560901); and Petition of JP Morgan Securities, Inc., for 14 relief for certain provisions of CCC Order No. 08-06-30-03 requiring the Petitioner to 15 file a completed non-gaming agreement CSI license application (PRN 0560903) 16 11 Petition of Column Financial, Inc., for 53 99 relief from certain condition in CCC 17 Resolutions No. 07-03-07-13 and 08-01-30-14 and other relief (PRN 0220901); and 18 Cross Petition of Resorts International Hotel, Inc., in opposition of relief sought 19 in PRN 0220901 and for a declaratory ruling as to certain licensing requirements (PRN 0370901) 20 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: 21 Jeffrey Beck 100 22 23 24 25 6 1 E X H I B I T S 2 NO. DESCRIPTION EVD 3 4 P-1 Remand for hearings 14 license X 5 P-2 Grant 2 licenses X 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (Exhibits retained by Commission.) 25 7 1 (Public Meeting 09-03-04 was commenced 2 at 10:39 a.m.) 3 MR. NANCE: Good morning. I'd like to 4 read an opening statement: 5 This is to advise the general public 6 that in compliance with Chapter 231 of the 7 public laws of 1975 entitled the "Open Public 8 Meetings Act," the New Jersey Casino Control 9 Commission on October 7, 2009, filed with the 10 Secretary of State at the State House in 11 Trenton, New Jersey, a notice of this hearing. 12 On October 7, copies were mailed to 13 subscribers. 14 Members of the press will be permitted 15 to take photographs, and we ask that this be 16 done in a manner which is not disruptive or 17 distracting to the Commission. 18 The use of cellular telephones in the 19 public meeting room while the Commission is in 20 session is prohibited. 21 Would everyone please stand for the 22 Pledge of Allegiance. 23 (The flag salute was recited.) 24 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Good morning. 25 MR. NANCE: Good morning. The matters 8 ITEM NO. 1-2 1 discussed in closed session were: Employee and 2 enterprise license matters. 3 The Commission approved the February 18, 4 2009, closed session minutes. 5 Item No. 1, ratification of the minutes 6 of February 18th, 2009, public meeting. 7 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Move to 8 approve. 9 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Second. 10 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 11 made and seconded. All in favor? 12 (Ayes.) 13 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 14 (No response.) 15 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion carries. 16 MR. NANCE: Item No. 2, application for 17 employee and casino service industry licenses. 18 This agenda item will be entered as Exhibit 19 List 1 and 2. 20 Exhibit List 1 consists of 14 21 applications for initial and/or renewal of 22 casino key and casino employee licenses. 23 The Division has objected to licensure. 24 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Motion to remand 25 for hearings. 9 ITEM NO. 2 1 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 3 made and seconded. All in favor? 4 (Ayes.) 5 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 6 (No response.) 7 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion carries. 8 MR. NANCE: For consideration is the 9 casino service industry license application of 10 Lake Shore Studio, Inc. 11 The Division has objected to this 12 application. 13 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Motion to remand 14 for a hearing. 15 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 17 made and seconded. All in favor? 18 (Ayes.) 19 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 20 (No response.) 21 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion carries. 22 MR. NANCE: Exhibit List 2 consists of 23 two applications for initial and/or renewal of 24 casino key and casino employee licenses. 25 Staff and the Division have recommended 10 ITEM NO. 2 1 that these licenses be granted. 2 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Motion to grant 3 applications. 4 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 5 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Second. 6 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 7 made and seconded. All in favor? 8 (Ayes.) 9 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 10 (No response.) 11 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion carries. 12 MR. NANCE: For consideration is the 13 casino service industry license renewal 14 application pursuant to NJSA 5:12-92(c) for 15 Agate Construction Company, Inc. 16 Staff and the Division have recommended 17 that this license be granted. 18 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Motion to grant 19 applications. 20 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 21 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Second. 22 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 23 made and seconded. All in favor? 24 (Ayes.) 25 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 11 ITEM NO. 2 1 (No response.) 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion carries. 3 MR. NANCE: For consideration are the 4 following applications for initial and renewal 5 of casino key employee licenses and for 6 qualification: For Craig Keyser, Executive 7 Vice President of Human Resources for Trump Taj 8 Mahal Associates, LLC, and Christine Tartaglio, 9 Vice President of Human Resources for Adamar of 10 New Jersey, Inc. 11 Staff and the Division have recommended 12 these applications be granted. 13 COMMISSIONER EPPS: Motion to grant 14 renewal of key license and for qualification. 15 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion is made and 17 seconded. This is a roll call vote. 18 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Fedorko? 19 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Yes. 20 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Sommeling? 21 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Yes. 22 MR. NANCE: Vice Chair Epps? 23 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Yes. 24 MR. NANCE: Chair Kassekert? 25 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Yes. 12 ITEM NO. 3 1 MR. NANCE: The record will reflect that 2 the motion is unanimous. 3 Item No. 3, stipulation of settlement 4 and consent agreements. When I call your name, 5 please come forward, spreading across the room 6 behind this middle table so that you may be 7 seen: Mary Kay Whitaker, John Dixon, III, 8 Betty Giddins, Gustavo Cruz, and Scott 9 Eldridge. 10 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 11 I'm going to ask that each of you state 12 your name for the record, starting with you, 13 sir. 14 MR. CRUZ: Gustavo Cruz. 15 MS. GIDDINS: Betty Giddins. 16 MR. ELDRIDGE: Scott Eldridge. 17 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. In a moment we 18 are going to vote on the stipulations which 19 you've agreed to with the Division of Gaming 20 Enforcement. I'm going to ask at this point if 21 any of you wish to be to be heard on this 22 matter. You don't have to say anything if you 23 don't want to. 24 Does anyone wish to be heard? 25 MS. GIDDINS: No. 13 ITEM NO. 4 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Good. 2 Mr. Biscieglia? 3 MR. BISCIEGLIA: Good morning, Chair, 4 Commissioners. 5 The Division has nothing further and ask 6 that the stipulations be adopted. 7 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Any questions? 8 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No questions, 9 Madame Chair. 10 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Motion to approve 11 stipulations. 12 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Second. 13 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 14 made and seconded. All in favor? 15 (Ayes.) 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 17 (No response.) 18 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion carries. 19 Thank you for coming, and good luck. 20 MR. ELDRIDGE: Thank you. 21 MS. GIDDINS: Thank you. 22 MR. CRUZ: Thank you. 23 MR. NANCE: Item No. 4, stipulation of 24 settlement in State versus Marina Associates, 25 Marina Associates, and Marina District 14 ITEM NO. 4 1 Development Company, LLC. 2 Mr. Corbett? 3 MR. CORBETT: Good morning, Chair, 4 Commissioners. 5 In the stipulation of settlement in this 6 case, the casino licensee admits the regulatory 7 violation regarding underage gambling and 8 agrees to a penalty of $15,000. 9 Mr. Lowry is here for the Respondent and 10 Mr. Stebbins for the Division. 11 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 12 Mr. Lowry? 13 MR. LOWRY: Good morning, Chair. 14 Nothing further. We rest. And we ask 15 the Commission to grant the settlement. 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 17 Mr. Stebbins? 18 MR. STEBBINS: Nothing further. You 19 have the papers in front of you. I urge you to 20 adopt the stipulation and enter the appropriate 21 order. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 24 Any questions? 25 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No questions, 15 ITEM NO. 4 1 Madame Chair. 2 Move to approve the stipulation of 3 settlement and impose a civil penalty of 4 $15,000 against Marina Associates for violation 5 of Commission regulations regarding underage 6 gambling. 7 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Second. 8 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Second. 9 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 10 made and seconded. All in favor? 11 (Ayes.) 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 13 (No response.) 14 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion carries. 15 MR. CORBETT: Next item, 4b, in the 16 stipulation of settlement in this case, the 17 casino licensee admits to regulatory violation 18 regarding the rules of the game of roulette and 19 agrees to a penalty of $10,000. 20 Again, Mr. Lowry here for the 21 Respondent, Mr. Stebbins for the Division. 22 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Mr. Lowry? 23 MR. LOWRY: Again, Chair, nothing 24 further. We just ask the Commission to adopt 25 the settlement in the matter. 16 ITEM NO. 4 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 2 Mr. Stebbins? 3 MR. STEBBINS: I would echo Mr. Lowry's 4 comments, indicate this is a situation where 5 the dealer at the game of roulette failed to 6 take down the wagers as required by 7 regulations, and just leave it to your 8 discretion. 9 Thank you. 10 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 11 Any questions? 12 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Madame Chair, 13 move to approve the stipulation of settlement 14 and impose a civil penalty of $10,000 against 15 Marina Associates for violation of casino 16 regulations regarding the game of roulette. 17 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Second. 18 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 19 made and seconded. All in favor? 20 (Ayes.) 21 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 22 (No response.) 23 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion carries. 24 MR. LOWRY: Thank you. 25 MR. CORBETT: Chair, in the stipulation 17 ITEM NO. 4 1 of settlement in this case, the casino licensee 2 admits to regulatory violation regarding 3 underaged gambling and agrees to a penalty of 4 $15,000. 5 Mr. Corbo is here for the Respondent and 6 Mr. Stebbins for the Division. 7 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Good morning Mr. 8 Corbo. 9 MR. CORBO: Good morning, Chair, 10 Commissioners. 11 I have nothing to add to the stipulation 12 and would urge you to adopt it, please. 13 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 14 Mr. Stebbins? 15 MR. STEBBINS: Madame Chair, members of 16 the Commission in this case, Borgata personnel 17 did, in fact, catch the underaged person, but 18 the Division brought a complaint, indeed it's 19 been settled now, because in the Division's 20 view, and I hope in the Commission's view, the 21 house has to do a little better than three 22 hours poker play before you catch the guy. So 23 I would encourage to you adopt the appropriate 24 order. 25 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 18 ITEM NO. 5 1 Any questions? 2 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Motion to approve 3 the stipulation of settlement and impose a 4 civil penalty of $15,000 against Marina 5 District Development Company, LLC, for 6 violation of Commission regulations regarding 7 underage gaming. 8 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Second. 9 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 10 made and seconded. All in favor? 11 (Ayes.) 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 13 (No response.) 14 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion carries. 15 MR. STEBBINS: Thank you. 16 MR. CORBO: Thank you. 17 MR. NANCE: Item No. 5, application for 18 suspension for Jeramine Baskerville and 19 Victoria Dorsey. 20 Miss Frigen? 21 MS. FRIGEN: Good morning, Madame Chair, 22 Commissioners. 23 With respect to the first case, Mr. 24 Baskerville is present. Before we hear the 25 basis for which the Division is seeking 19 ITEM NO. 5 1 suspension, it's my understanding that Mr. 2 Baskerville wishes to request an adjournment of 3 consideration of his case today. Therefore, I 4 would ask him first to go forward with the 5 basis for that request and give the Division an 6 opportunity to respond to you to make a 7 decision. 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 9 Mr. Baskerville, we'll need to swear you 10 in. 11 12 JERMAINE BASKERVILLE was duly sworn to 13 testify in this matter. 14 15 MR. NANCE: Please state your name for 16 the record. 17 MR. BASKERVILLE: Jermaine Baskerville. 18 MR. NANCE: Thank you. 19 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. Mr. 20 Baskerville, what's the basis for your request 21 for an adjournment? 22 MR. BASKERVILLE: I'm looking forward to 23 my PTI, my PTI program being completed by the 24 26th of this month. And again, I will -- I 25 would like to have it changed to come before 20 ITEM NO. 5 1 you today with the charges that's suspended 2 against me right now to be dropped. 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: How long have you been 4 in PTI? 5 MR. BASKERVILLE: For -- since the 6 beginning of September so, say, maybe about 7 seven months? 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Let me ask if any of 9 the Commissioners have any questions? 10 Commissioner Epps? 11 VICE CHAIR EPPS: I'll hear from the 12 Division. 13 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: I want to hear 14 from the Division. 15 CHAIR KASSEKERT: All right. Mr. 16 Biscieglia? 17 MR. BISCIEGLIA: Thank you. 18 The Division doesn't object to this 19 request based on I was only briefly able to 20 look at the document that Mr. Baskerville had, 21 but it seemed to speak that he has another 22 pending criminal charge that needs to be 23 addressed along the lines of the PTI. 24 Now, normally when you're in pretrial 25 intervention, if there's another charge that 21 ITEM NO. 5 1 arises, oftentimes this can derail the pretrial 2 intervention process. I believe based on the 3 fact -- I mean, this is going more into the 4 argument for suspension, as well. But based on 5 the fact that he was sentenced to 36 months of 6 PTI, and it seems we're only really six months 7 away -- into the PTI, I would like to see more 8 of a definite -- a definite document showing 9 that he has been released from PTI before the 10 suspension application would not be applicable 11 to the situation. 12 I mean, based these -- and, once again, 13 I haven't really been given the opportunity to 14 view of all of these documents. 15 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Uh-huh. Okay. 16 MR. BASKERVILLE: May I say something? 17 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Sure. 18 MR. BASKERVILLE: I understand that, and 19 I respects -- I respect the Division's position 20 on that. But right here I have a -- I have a 21 statement from my officer, my PTI officer, 22 stating that all the conditions of my PTI 23 program was complete, that all my fines was 24 paid in full, and I completed all my community 25 service. And the Division is right. His 22 ITEM NO. 5 1 attorney is right as far as a charge being 2 pending that which is -- which is holding up 3 the process of my PTI. 4 I -- I tried to explain to their 5 attorney earlier that my lawyers are totally 6 optimistic about those charges being dismissed, 7 and that's why I told when I first sat down, I 8 explained to yous that I'm looking forward to 9 having my PTI totally completed by the 26th of 10 March. Which is the date I go before the judge 11 to have those charges dismissed. Those pending 12 charges that's holding up the process of the 13 completion of PTI. 14 MR. BISCIEGLIA: If I may just briefly 15 respond. 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Sure. 17 MR. BISCIEGLIA: The problem that I have 18 with this and objecting to this is all of this 19 seems to be based on uncertain future events. 20 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Uh-hum. 21 MR. BISCIEGLIA: There's no certainty of 22 whether they will happen or not. Today we do 23 have the certainty that there was an indictment 24 for disqualifying offense. The Respondent a 25 deferral, and as part of the deferral process, 23 ITEM NO. 5 1 the Division will not be able to address theses 2 charges until sometime in 2011. As it stands 3 today. Something in the future may or may not 4 happen to change that. But as of this time, 5 I'm not seeing where that is. So based on the 6 circumstances we have today, I feel we need to 7 go forward with the suspension application. 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. Let me ask if 9 any of the Commissioners have any questions. 10 Commissioner Epps? 11 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Well, Mr. Biscieglia, 12 I just have a question. I think you said 13 earlier that you didn't have a chance to review 14 the documents, and you're not exactly certain 15 what the status of the things are because you 16 only had a chance to give a cursory review of 17 what he had. 18 MR. BISCIEGLIA: Yes, Commissioner. 19 VICE CHAIR EPPS: We meet again -- it 20 doesn't work out for his plan exactly, but we 21 meet again on the 18th. If we carry it two 22 weeks -- just asking a question -- if we carry 23 it two weeks, would that give you enough time 24 to review the document to determine whether or 25 not what he suggests -- and I just trust that 24 ITEM NO. 5 1 you would be fair and honest -- is a viable 2 plan or something that you might even agree 3 with or not? Or could you make that 4 determination today? You don't need -- 5 MR. BISCIEGLIA: I can certainly make 6 that determination today. I mean, I briefly 7 got a chance to look at that. It stated there 8 was a hearing scheduled for the future to 9 address the PTI and another pending related 10 marijuana charge. I'm wasn't sure. I didn't 11 get if it was a simple possession or if it was 12 another distribution charge. 13 The basis -- and I understand what 14 you're saying. And I will, of course, defer if 15 my objection is overruled and we adjourn this 16 matter and see it at another date. It's just 17 my belief that at this time right now, I don't 18 know if a lot is served by waiting that 19 two-week period, we still have the criminal 20 offense. Whether or not he's -- if he is 21 suspended today, if he does get off of PTI in a 22 month or whatever the circumstance is, then we 23 can immediately move the process into the 24 hearing process. Move the case into the 25 hearing process and adjudicate it through that. 25 ITEM NO. 5 1 But I don't know if carrying it for another two 2 weeks really serves a purpose in that regard. 3 And, like I said, we're -- if my objection -- 4 and if it is overruled, my objection overruled, 5 so be it. 6 If I -- I mean, I don't need two weeks 7 to look at documentation. It's only two sheets 8 of paper. I just briefly got a chance to 9 glance at it. I wasn't really -- 10 VICE CHAIR EPPS: I mean, I guess the 11 point I'm getting to is if this matter could 12 progress to something that could be worked out, 13 then it makes sense to try to work it out. But 14 if you don't think it's going to progress to 15 something that could be worked out, I don't 16 know that we -- it serves much purpose. But I 17 was -- 18 MR. BISCIEGLIA: And, like I said, my 19 problem was with all the uncertainty involved. 20 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Right. 21 MR. BISCIEGLIA: It's a lot of coulds 22 and maybes. 23 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Right. I mean, there 24 are a lot of coulds and maybes. I guess 25 looking at it in the light most optimistically 26 ITEM NO. 5 1 because, personally, I don't like to see people 2 out of work if we can avoid it. 3 MR. BISCIEGLIA: Right. And I -- 4 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Looking at it in the 5 light most optimistically, if all the ifs and 6 buts line up, is it something that can be 7 worked out? Is that a -- 8 MR. BISCIEGLIA: You mean the case 9 itself through the impending hearing process? 10 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Right. 11 MR. BISCIEGLIA: No. 12 VICE CHAIR EPPS: No. No. No. Not the 13 hearing process, through the PTI process 14 resolving, and does that turn the case? 15 MR. BISCIEGLIA: I don't believe so. I 16 believe the Division based on the -- 17 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Underlying charge. 18 MR. BISCIEGLIA: The underlying facts, 19 the recent charge, and the evidence presented, 20 I believe the Division will be pursuing this to 21 a revocation, and that's the ultimate goal. 22 Whether that occurs at stipulation of 23 settlement or at a hearing. I don't think it's 24 a case where simply completing PTI is going to 25 alleviate the Division's concerns in this 27 ITEM NO. 5 1 matter. 2 VICE CHAIR EPPS: I guess that's what I 3 was looking to hear. 4 MR. BISCIEGLIA: Okay. 5 MR. BASKERVILLE: I understand what 6 their attorney is saying. It's just that from 7 what I understand, these -- those ramifications 8 are holding against me because they believe the 9 PTI is lasting for three years, for 2011. And 10 I tried to explain to the attorney that as me 11 being a first-time offender and them giving me 12 the PTI, I have that option to not have to 13 serve the whole three years term but to finish 14 it as soon as possible. And -- 15 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Well, I think I see 16 the confusion, and I'm going to take a stab at 17 this, Mr. Baskerville. You -- you seem to be 18 under the belief that if you get to the 26th 19 and your PTI is done and you're released from 20 PTI, and you're all done, that that means 21 you're all done and the Division can work it 22 out with you. But that's not how this process 23 work. The underlying incident is still there. 24 It doesn't go away because you completed PTI, 25 or even if it gets dismissed at PTI. You can 28 ITEM NO. 5 1 look beyond the dismissal to the actual event 2 that occurred. The Division and the Commission 3 can do that in these processes. So the fact 4 that legally it goes away for the court's 5 purposes, it doesn't quite go away the same way 6 for the Commission's purposes. So getting to 7 the 26th isn't a target date that makes it all 8 resolved. That still hangs out there. The 9 Commission gets to review that with respect to 10 whether or not you get to maintain a license. 11 It's a whole different standard. So the 26th 12 isn't a magic date with respect to your license 13 process. 14 MR. BASKERVILLE: I understand that. 15 And I spoke with Mrs. Frigen, and she 16 complained that thoroughly to me. It's just 17 that I came in today to, you know, it's not 18 solely just on me getting my PTI complete, but 19 I'm ill prepared right now as we speak. As far 20 as my attorney is concerned, my attorney chose 21 not to come with me today because he had prior 22 engagements, and he didn't have a chance to 23 follow up and meet with -- speak with the 24 attorneys at the Division. So they suggested 25 that I go forth today and try get the 29 ITEM NO. 5 1 postponement so I can have better 2 representation as far as how to settle this 3 matter, not just -- not just, you know, the 4 completion of my PTI and, you know, everything 5 goes away. I understand that. 6 But like I was explaining that I don't 7 want this -- this hearing to be postponed 8 because, you know, I want it to get to a 9 certain date. Like, that may be part of it, 10 but another part of it is well, so that I can 11 be better prepared, and I will have my 12 attorney, and my attorney can look deep into 13 the case as well. 14 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Well, based on -- 15 based on my experience sitting here and with 16 these matters, even if you had counsel here, 17 the likelihood of moving this matter or 18 stopping the suspension based on what's 19 underlying, I don't know that it would change 20 the day very much. But I don't know that 21 there's enough here to postpone it any further. 22 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Mr. Biscieglia? 23 MR. BISCIEGLIA: If I could just make 24 one final statement. 25 I think the most pressing certain here 30 ITEM NO. 5 1 is the original underlying matter is a matter 2 where Respondent was driving a vehicle in which 3 was found a -- contained a bag containing 87 4 bags of marijuana. Now, based on the 5 documentation he's showing me, there seems to 6 be another pending charge relating to 7 marijuana, which I think only strengthens the 8 Division's application for a suspension in that 9 we now have another charge along the same lines 10 of the charge that originally brought us here. 11 And it's based on, I think the 12 preparation time, I think based on the date of 13 the deferral was granted February 3rd, 2009, 14 the case went into PTI August 27th of 2008, I 15 think there's been ample preparation time given 16 to the Respondent. 17 MR. BASKERVILLE: But I didn't find out. 18 I didn't find out the Division was seeking to 19 suspend my license. I didn't even have no idea 20 when I got into PTI. And back in September 21 that the Division would go forth with this. I 22 just found out about a month ago that they 23 would be suspending -- looking to suspend my 24 license. So as far as me having enough time to 25 be prepared, my preparation time was, like, a 31 ITEM NO. 5 1 little less than 30 days. 2 MS. FRIGEN: The application for 3 suspension was filed on February 9th. 4 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Well, it's my 6 impression that if someone comes before us and 7 is indicted that we have no recourse but to 8 suspend so I'm going to make a motion to 9 suspend. 10 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 11 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 12 made and seconded. All in favor? 13 (Ayes.) 14 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 15 (No response.) 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion carries. 17 Miss Frigen will explain to you 18 afterwards what happens next with the hearing 19 process. 20 MS. FRIGEN: Okay. The next case we 21 have is Victoria Dorsey. Let me ask for the 22 record whether Miss Dorsey is present or 23 represented? 24 (No response.) 25 MS. FRIGEN: Apparently she is not here. 32 ITEM NO. 6 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Mr. Biscieglia? 2 MR. BISCIEGLIA: This is a very similar 3 matter. Since Miss Dorsey is not here. The 4 Division will rely on its papers and answer any 5 questions that the Division has. Or, excuse 6 me, that the Commission has. 7 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 8 Any questions? 9 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No questions, 10 Madame Chair. 11 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Motion to suspend 12 credentials. 13 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 14 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 15 made and seconded. All in favor? 16 (Ayes.) 17 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 18 (No response.) 19 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion carries. 20 MR. BISCIEGLIA: Thank you. 21 MR. NANCE: Item No. 6, preliminary 22 hearing concerning the exclusion of Erickson 23 Urtecho. 24 Ms. Frigen? 25 MS. FRIGEN: Let me ask for the record 33 ITEM NO. 6 1 whether Mr. Urtecho is present this morning? 2 (No response.) 3 MS. FRIGEN: Okay. He did call me about 4 a week and a half ago indicating he would be 5 here today, but apparently he is not. I don't 6 know if the Commission wants to go forward at 7 this time. 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Sure. 9 MS. FRIGEN: It is 11:00. I would ask 10 the Division to go forward with the basis which 11 it's seeking preliminary exclusion. 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Sure. 13 Mr. Stebbins? 14 MR. STEBBINS: Thank you. Madame Chair, 15 members of the Commission. 16 We're here today because we have an 17 individual, Mr. Urtecho, who was arrested and 18 charged with a cheating offense at Caesars. 19 That activity was confirmed by surveillance 20 when there were multiple occasions when he and 21 his associate, an individual who is also on the 22 exclusion list as I stand here today, were 23 switching cards at a game. 24 In addition to that, Mr. Urtecho has 25 some other criminal baggage in the form of a 34 ITEM NO. 6 1 conviction for -- the original charge was 2 theft, but it's a disorderly conduct charge as 3 well. So we have conduct. We have convictions 4 in place as a predicate for an exclusion. 5 A couple of things I would like to point 6 out, as I've been heard to say recently, the 7 legislature has told the Commission and the 8 Division that the integrity of the games is the 9 bedrock of what we do, and for that reason, I 10 would suggest to the Commission -- I certainly 11 embrace the idea that we can't tolerate 12 compromise of that integrity in the games. 13 That statutory statement is echoed in your 14 regulations which lists cheats as one of the 15 specifically enumerated categories for 16 exclusion, and that's what the Division has 17 advanced here. 18 The other thing I want to say here -- 19 well, two other things. But firstly I want to 20 say this. We just heard Mr. Baskerville here 21 and Commissioner Epps said that he gets 22 concerned, and I share the concern, when you're 23 taking away somebody's livelihood. This is not 24 taking away somebody's livelihood. All this is 25 doing is precluding somebody who on 35 ITEM NO. 6 1 surveillance was cheating at the game from 2 enjoying the entertainment that the casinos 3 offer. There is no pecuniary down side here 4 unless you want to consider the fact that his 5 business of cheating stops him from getting 6 some bucks from the casinos. So, you know, we 7 are not taking away somebody's livelihood here. 8 Finally, I want to point out to you that 9 the standard -- and this is in the statute -- 10 for a preliminary placement is really very low. 11 It is just that there is a reasonable 12 possibility that the Division could establish 13 one of the exclusion criteria. And I would 14 submit to you that on the documents before you 15 with the conviction and everything else, the 16 Division has met that very low burden, and I 17 would ask you to enter that appropriate ruling. 18 Thank you. 19 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 20 Any questions for Mr. Stebbins? 21 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No questions, 22 Madame Chair. 23 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Madame Chair, I move 24 we grant the Division's request for preliminary 25 placement of Mr. Urtecho's name on the 36 ITEM NO. 7 1 exclusion list pending final action on the 2 related petition for final exclusion. 3 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 4 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 5 made and seconded. All in favor? 6 (Ayes.) 7 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 8 (No response.) 9 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion carries. 10 MR. STEBBINS: Thank you. 11 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 12 MR. NANCE: Item No. 7, petition of 13 Harrah's Entertainment Inc., Harrah's Operating 14 Company, Inc., Harrah's Atlantic City Operating 15 Company, LLC, Showboat Atlantic City Operating 16 Company, LLC, Bally's Park Place, Inc., and 17 Boardwalk Regency Corp., for waiver of 18 qualification requirement of a corporate 19 officer. 20 Miss Richardson? 21 MS. RICHARDSON: Good morning, Chair and 22 Commissioners. 23 A draft resolution was circulated to the 24 parties in this matter and appearing for 25 Petitioners is Tim Lowry and for the Division 37 ITEM NO. 7 1 is DAG Mary Jo Flaherty. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Good morning, Mr. 3 Lowry. 4 MR. LOWRY: Good morning, Chair. 5 This is for a position that I wish I 6 could apply for right now, Vice President of 7 sales. We're asking the Commission to 8 qualify -- waive from qualification his 9 position as it will have no direct impact 10 touching or concerning Atlantic City and 11 manipulating the operations. We ask that the 12 Commission grant the relief requested. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 15 Miss Flaherty? 16 MS. FLAHERTY: Yes. Good morning, 17 Chair, Commissioners. 18 This position will focus on nongaming 19 revenue, and this person will not have 20 day-to-day responsibilities or decision-making 21 responsibilities with regard to the Atlantic 22 City casinos. Therefore, the Director concurs 23 in the waiver because he will not be involved 24 in the activities of operations in Atlantic 25 City. 38 ITEM NO. 7 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 2 Let me ask if the commissioners have any 3 questions? 4 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Why would you want to 5 be in sales? 6 (Laughter.) 7 MR. LOWRY: Vice President. 8 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: The answer is so 9 he could have a real job. 10 (Laughter.) 11 MR. LOWRY: Commissioner, did you see 12 the back page here. It's fantastic. 13 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Okay. 14 (Laughter.) 15 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Any other question? 16 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Madame Chair, 17 move to adopt the draft resolution and waive 18 the qualification requirement pursuant to NJSA 19 5:12-85d(1) as to Jeff Hoss in his capacity as 20 Vice President of Sales for Harrah's 21 Entertainment Inc., and Harrah's Operating 22 Company, Inc. 23 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Second. 24 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 25 made and seconded. This is a roll call vote. 39 ITEM NO. 8 1 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Fedorko? 2 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Yes. 3 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Sommeling? 4 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Yes. 5 MR. NANCE: Vice Chair Epps? 6 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Yes. 7 MR. NANCE: Chair Kassekert? 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Yes. 9 MR. NANCE: The record will reflect that 10 the motion is unanimous. 11 MR. LOWRY: Thank you. 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 13 MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you. 14 MR. NANCE: Item No. 8, petition of 15 Trump Plaza Associates, LLC, for an amendment 16 to its operating certificate. 17 MR. MONCRIEF: Madame Chair, members of 18 the Commission, a draft resolution has been 19 circulated. Here representing the Petitioner 20 is Frederick Cunningham and on behalf of the 21 Division is Tim Ficchi. 22 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. Good morning, 23 Mr. Cunningham. 24 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Good morning. 25 Unless there are any questions, I'm 40 ITEM NO. 8 1 content to rest on the papers and urge that the 2 resolution before you be adopted. 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 4 Mr. Ficchi? 5 MR. FICCHI: Good morning, Chair, 6 Commissioners. 7 The Division has reviewed the draft 8 resolution and has no objection to its adoption 9 by the Commission. 10 Thank you. 11 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 12 Let me ask if there are any questions? 13 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No questions, 14 Madame Chair. 15 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Motion to adopt 16 the draft resolution and approve the petition 17 of Trump Plaza Associates, LLC, for an 18 amendment to its certificate of operation and 19 CHAB license, to permit the reconfiguration of 20 its gaming floor subject to the conditions in 21 the resolution. 22 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 23 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 24 made and seconded. All in favor? 25 (Ayes.) 41 ITEM NO. 9 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 2 (No response.) 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion carries. 4 MR. FICCHI: Thank you. 5 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you. 6 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 7 MR. NANCE: Item No. 9, consideration of 8 the qualification of Harry Hagerty, III, to 9 serve as a member of the Board of Directors 10 Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. 11 Miss Frank? 12 MS. FRANK: Good morning, Chair and 13 Commissioners. 14 Mr. Hagerty received temporary 15 qualification from the Commission in June of 16 last year. A draft resolution on his plenary 17 qualification has been circulated to the 18 parties. 19 While counsel for Trump is not here 20 today -- 21 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Where is Mr. Fusco? 22 MR. FOGARTY: Or Mr. Pickus? 23 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Or Mr. Pickus? 24 MR. FOGARTY: I don't know. Maybe we 25 should put out an APB for him. 42 ITEM NO. 9 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Or adjourn the matter. 2 MR. FOGARTY: No. Let's not do that. 3 (Laughter.) 4 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Mr. Fogarty, would you 5 like to -- 6 MR. FOGARTY: Yes. We filed a letter 7 report on Mr. Hagerty dated February 25, 2009, 8 recommending that he be qualified. I would 9 like to point out that Mr. Hagerty is not in a 10 sales position. 11 (Laughter.) 12 MR. FOGARTY: He's in -- he's going to 13 be a member of the board of Trump. And I'm not 14 sure what's really worse, either sales or -- 15 In any event, we recommend that -- and 16 I've seen Claire -- Miss Frank's draft 17 resolution, and I have no objection to its 18 entry. 19 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 20 Any questions? 21 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No questions. 22 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Madame Chair, I move 23 that we adopt the draft resolution and find 24 Harry Hagerty, III, qualified to serve as a 25 member of the Board of Directors of Trump 43 ITEM NO. 9-10 1 Entertainment Resorts, Inc. 2 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion has been made 4 and seconded. This is a roll call vote. 5 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Fedorko? 6 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Yes. 7 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Sommeling? 8 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Yes. 9 MR. NANCE: Vice Chair Epps? 10 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Yes. 11 MR. NANCE: Chair Kassekert? 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Yes. 13 MR. NANCE: The record will reflect that 14 the motion is unanimous. 15 MS. FRANK: Thank you. 16 MR. FOGARTY: Thank you. 17 MR. NANCE: Item No. 10 has been 18 adjourned to the March 18th, 2009, public 19 meeting. 20 Item No. 11, petition of Column 21 Financial, Inc., and Trimont Real Estate 22 Advisors, for relief from certain conditions of 23 CCC Resolution 07-03 -- 24 CHAIR KASSEKERT: I think we're going to 25 recess at this point before we -- 44 ITEM NO. 6 1 MR. NANCE: Okay. 2 CHAIR KASSEKERT: -- hear the item. 3 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Before. 4 MR. O'GARA: Before? 5 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Before. 6 (A recess was taken from 11:07 to 12:20 7 p.m.) 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: We'll go back on the 9 record. 10 MR. NANCE: I'd like to recall Item No. 11 6, preliminary hearing concerning the exclusion 12 of Erickson Urtecho. 13 Miss Frigen? 14 MS. FRIGEN: Madame Chair, 15 Commissioners, Mr. Urtecho did arrive late. He 16 is here. I would ask him to have a seat at the 17 table here, please. He took a train in and 18 that's why I understand there was a reason for 19 the delay. 20 He would like the opportunity to address 21 the Commission. Just to recall, the Commission 22 did enter a preliminary exclusion order, so 23 there would be motion needed in order for the 24 Commission to reconsider this matter. 25 CHAIR KASSEKERT: We'll need the motion, 45 ITEM NO. 6 1 first; correct? 2 MS. FRIGEN: Yes. 3 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. Can I have a 4 motion to reconsider this matter? 5 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Motion. 6 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Second. 7 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 8 made and seconded. All in favor? 9 (Ayes.) 10 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 11 (No response.) 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion carries. 13 Mr. Urtecho, would you stand to be sworn 14 in, please. 15 MR. URTECHO: Yes, ma'am. 16 17 ERICKSON URTECHO was duly sworn to 18 testify in this matter. 19 20 MR. NANCE: Please state your name for 21 the record. 22 MR. URTECHO: Erickson Urtecho. 23 MR. NANCE: Thank you. 24 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 25 MR. NANCE: You may be seated. 46 ITEM NO. 6 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: We have heard the -- 2 the Division moved forward, so do we need to 3 have Mr. Stebbins restate -- 4 MS. FRIGEN: I think we do. 5 CHAIR KASSEKERT: -- his position? 6 MS. FRIGEN: Just for the benefit of Mr. 7 Urtecho so he can understand the basis for 8 which the Division -- 9 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Mr. Stebbins, would 10 you do so, please? 11 MR. STEBBINS: Fine. Thank you. 12 Mr. Urtecho and a colleague who is 13 presently on the exclusion list -- the other 14 individual, that is -- were at Caesars. They 15 were under surveillance. They were observed to 16 be cheating at the game by switching cards on 17 at least four occasions, and that is way we've 18 brought this particular action. 19 In addition to that, there's a 20 conviction for a theft offense as well, which 21 is punishable by more than six months. And as 22 I said earlier, and not to bore people for 23 either the first or second time, one of the 24 bedrock issues that the Commission has to deal 25 with is maintaining the integrity of the games. 47 ITEM NO. 6 1 This Commission has and, rightly so, identified 2 cheats as people who are specifically 3 identified as people to be excluded under the 4 inimical provision of your regulations. This 5 is not, as I said before, a situation where you 6 are stopping somebody from employment, 7 pecuniary gain or, as I said earlier, unless 8 you consider, you know, the gain from cheating 9 to be an endeavor. All you're doing is you're 10 stopping him from a little entertainment. 11 And for all of those reasons, it is 12 important to maintain the integrity of the game 13 and to exclude people such as Mr. Urtecho who 14 have engaged in cheating. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 17 Mr. Urtecho, what would you like to say 18 today? 19 MR. URTECHO: What this gentleman said, 20 it's fairly true what happened. Back in 2005, 21 if I can recall, Mr. Bob Buwit, he's -- I 22 looked it up on line. He is on the exclusion 23 list, and he was the person that I was involved 24 with. At that time I was 20 years old. Now 25 I'm 23. You know, it was something stupid on 48 ITEM NO. 6 1 my behalf. He was just happened to be sitting 2 right next to me. And he, like, I don't want 3 to say like conned me into, like, switching 4 this card scheme. Because that's -- that's 5 pretty much what happened. I was 20 years old, 6 stupid. It was my -- actually, my third time 7 in a casino at that time. Since this incident 8 I was told I wasn't allowed to be in any 9 Caesars Entertainment properties or Harrah's 10 Entertainment at the time, which I haven't been 11 to -- to this day. I have played poker in 12 other properties like the Taj, Borgata, and at 13 the Tropicana. 14 And what he mentioned, $300 that 15 stuff -- I've never been in jail in my life. 16 Yeah. The $300, I did take. It was an 17 incident that happened at Hamilton Mall. 18 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. You know, I 19 think -- jet let me just is ask if the 20 Commissioners have any questions, but I 21 think -- I think you're kind of damning 22 yourself here, unfortunately. 23 Do any of the Commissioners have any 24 questions? 25 Commissioner Epps? 49 ITEM NO. 6 1 Commissioner? No. Okay. 2 Commissioner Fedorko? 3 MR. URTECHO: Ever since that 4 happened -- 5 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Like you said, 6 you were 20 years old and gambling in a casino? 7 CHAIR KASSEKERT: That's illegal. 8 MR. URTECHO: I was also hit with -- I 9 was -- license was suspended for gambling 10 underage. 11 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Okay. 12 MR. URTECHO: When I was 20. Ever since 13 I've been 20 years old, I have never cheated or 14 swindled or never committed an act of fines or 15 nothing. 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. 17 MR. URTECHO: Been a good guy. I have 18 two kids now. 19 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. Commissioner 20 Epps? 21 VICE CHAIR EPPS: I think the Chair made 22 a good point. What's happening right now is 23 this is a determination that preliminarily 24 placed you on the exclusion list, and then you 25 get a right to have a full-blown hearing to 50 ITEM NO. 6 1 explain to a hearing officer as to why you 2 should not be permanently excluded. At that 3 point you will have an opportunity to bring a 4 very composed and organized case as to why you 5 shouldn't be excluded. You have time to put 6 that together and bring before this group. 7 But based on what you've presented 8 today, it doesn't persuade me, and I'm just 9 speaking as what I heard the Chair's remarks, 10 from at least placing you on the preliminary 11 exclusion list based on the history that has 12 been presented to us, which you've said is true 13 for the most part. 14 MR. URTECHO: Yeah. It is. 15 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Hear what I'm saying. 16 You have an opportunity to present a hearing 17 and convince the hearing officer that they 18 shouldn't exclude you permanently. But that 19 needs to be a well prepared presentation that 20 suggests that we shouldn't take that final step 21 toward you. Better than today's presentation. 22 But right now you're not really saying anything 23 that would suggest that we shouldn't take you 24 to the -- 25 MR. URTECHO: What would you like me to 51 ITEM NO. 6 1 say? 2 VICE CHAIR EPPS: I can't -- I can't do 3 it for you. I can't do it for you. I can't 4 prepare it for you. 5 MR. URTECHO: I understand. 6 VICE CHAIR EPPS: But what I'm telling 7 you is, it's not going well right now, but 8 you'll have an opportunity for a full hearing. 9 You need to think long and hard about how to 10 prepare that process to convince the hearing 11 officer that they shouldn't take the next step 12 against you. Do you follow me? 13 MR. URTECHO: Okay. 14 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Is there a motion? 15 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Motion to 16 suspend. 17 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 18 MR. NANCE: Preliminary placement on 19 exclusion list. 20 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Preliminary placement 21 on the exclusion list. 22 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Preliminary placement 23 on the exclusion list. 24 MR. URTECHO: So I'm excluded? 25 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Preliminarily. Until 52 ITEM NO. 6 1 the further hearing to determine whether it's a 2 permanent condition. So up until the point of 3 that hearing and that determine -- 4 MR. URTECHO: So why wasn't I excluded 5 back in '06 or whenever the incident happened? 6 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Because the issue 7 hasn't been brought to us for exclusion until 8 today. Now, it's before us for exclusion, and 9 that action is about to -- may happen, 10 depending on the outcome of a vote. The motion 11 has been made. I'm sorry. If I can -- 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: That's okay. And 13 Commissioner Epps seconds it. 14 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Yes. 15 CHAIR KASSEKERT: All in favor? 16 (Ayes.) 17 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 18 (No response.) 19 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion carries. So 20 as -- 21 MR. STEBBINS: Thank you. 22 CHAIR KASSEKERT: -- Commissioner Epps 23 explained to you, you are now preliminarily 24 excluded, pending a final hearing, from the 25 casinos. You should not be going into any New 53 ITEM NO. 11 1 Jersey Atlantic City casinos. Do you 2 understand that? 3 Okay. Thank you. 4 MS. FRIGEN: Thank you. 5 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 6 MR. URTECHO: I'm done? 7 CHAIR KASSEKERT: You're done. 8 MR. URTECHO: So what should I do about 9 this final hearing? 10 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Bernadette will 11 explain it all to you. Okay? 12 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Miss Frigen will 13 explain it to you. 14 MR. URTECHO: Thank you. 15 MR. NANCE: For your consideration, Item 16 No. 11, petition of Column Financial, Inc., and 17 Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., for relief 18 from final conditions in CCC Resolution 19 07-03-07-13 and 08-01-30-14 and other relief; 20 and Cross Petition of Resorts International 21 Hotel, Inc., in opposition of relief sought in 22 Petition 0220901 and for a declaratory ruling 23 as to the -- as to concern licensing 24 requirements. 25 Mr. DiGiacomo? 54 ITEM NO. 11 1 MR. DiGIACOMO: Chair, Commissioners. 2 Good afternoon. 3 If counsel could enter their appearances 4 for record, please. 5 MR. O'GARA: Paul O'Gara for Column 6 Financial and Trimont. 7 MR. BROOKS: Gil Brooks, Wolf Block, on 8 behalf of Resorts. 9 MS. FLAHERTY: Mary Jo Flaherty on 10 behalf of the Division of Gaming Enforcement. 11 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Good afternoon. 12 Let me ask if there are any procedural 13 matters that need to be brought to our 14 attention at this time? We obviously took 15 extensive testimony at our last meeting and 16 heard extensive argument. 17 MR. O'Gara? 18 MR. O'GARA: No, ma'am. I believe 19 subsequently there was a letter of February 20 24th that we sent at the request, I believe, at 21 the last meeting to narrow whatever issues. I 22 believe we outlined in there precisely the 23 issues as we see them for resolution. 24 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Would you like to just 25 sort of restate that for the record? 55 ITEM NO. 11 1 MR. O'GARA: Yeah. I think that very 2 simply what we seek is: A, the relief 3 specifically to file a complaint and seek 4 foreclosure of the mortgage with respect to the 5 real property; the right to accept a deed in 6 lieu of foreclosure, subject to our having 7 filed a petition to seek a ruling regarding the 8 status of the accepting entity and its 9 ownership; C, directing that the deposits be 10 made in a specific account, which we've 11 enumerated in our letter, which is provided for 12 in the agreement, which is a Resorts account 13 for the benefits of, meaning there's a security 14 interest by Column; and, finally, the right to 15 review any intercompany agreements subject, of 16 course, to the rights of this Commission to act 17 on any request we have with respect to the 18 master review of them. 19 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. Mr. Brooks? 20 MR. BROOKS: Thank you, Madame Chair. 21 We, likewise, submitted a letter to the 22 staff of the Division and Commission with 23 respect to -- or in connection with an attempt 24 to try to narrow the issues. That letter was 25 dated February 27th, 2009. And what we did in 56 ITEM NO. 11 1 terms of that letter is try to look at the 2 petition that was filed by Column Trimont to 3 respond to the specific request for relief in 4 that petition and to address the request for 5 relief as they may have been modified by 6 subsequent correspondence from Column Trimont 7 as well as the testimony that was introduced at 8 the last hearing. 9 I'd be glad to go down the list for you. 10 We have in connection with that letter, in 11 terms of those specific requests for relief in 12 the petition. 13 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 14 Let me just be -- prior to you doing 15 that. 16 Mr. O'Gara, I think you forgot the issue 17 with respect to the acceleration? 18 MR. O'GARA: Oh, yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. 19 Prior to any foreclosure would be to 20 accelerate the loan. I mean, if you were to 21 give us the consent, the first action would be 22 to accelerate under the loan agreement the 23 entire amount of the loan. That is correct. 24 CHAIR KASSEKERT: And I think you -- 25 yeah. Did you mention the management issue 57 ITEM NO. 11 1 with respect to the -- 2 MR. O'GARA: Well, we would -- pursuant 3 to the loan agreement, we would have upon 4 foreclosure or upon the acceptance of the deed 5 in lieu of foreclosure, we have -- the 6 agreement provides that the present operator 7 would remain for a period of up to one year 8 following that. We would seek to do that. And 9 seek to have the right to review other 10 management and if, in fact, appropriate to have 11 other management after it had been determined 12 by you such a management was appropriately 13 licensed, number one, and number two, is 14 operating to an agreement that you approve or 15 to a lease that you had approved. 16 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Mr. DiGiacomo, did I 17 get -- do we have everything in properly now? 18 MR. DiGIACOMO: I believe so. Yes. 19 CHAIR KASSEKERT: I'm sorry. 20 Mr. Brooks? 21 MR. BROOKS: No problem, Chair. I'll 22 address the requested relief and go through the 23 letter if it's okay with the letter. 24 Paragraph 16 of the Commission -- or the 25 petition sought permission from the Commission 58 ITEM NO. 11 1 to issue a demand acceleration letter. We 2 don't believe there's any licensing issue in 3 connection with that, and we have no objection 4 to the relief. 5 Paragraph 17a of the petition sought 6 permission to accept a deed in lieu of 7 foreclosure. And this request appeared to be 8 modified by the February 24th letter that we 9 saw from Column Trimont in that they 10 acknowledged that licensing must be dealt with 11 prior to the acceptance of any deed in lieu of 12 foreclosure. So, in that regard, I don't think 13 there's any dispute regarding that issue with 14 respect to Resorts and Column Trimont. 15 Paragraph 17b of the petition, it was a 16 request from Column Trimont to be able to 17 initiate a foreclosure proceeding. Again, that 18 petition -- or that request was modified by the 19 February 24th letter in the sense that there 20 was a recognition that if an order of 21 foreclosure is obtained, licensing issues have 22 to be dealt before there can be any transfer of 23 ownership of the property that can be 24 foreclosed upon. So, in that regard, we don't 25 have any dispute with respect to that request 59 ITEM NO. 11 1 for relief. 2 Paragraph 18a of the Column Trimont 3 petition initially requested approval to allow 4 Trimont to demand that Resorts make payments -- 5 or make deposits into a property account -- and 6 a property account is a defined term in under 7 the loan agreement -- in accordance with the 8 terms of the loan agreement. This request has 9 been now modified somewhat by the February 24th 10 letter in that they are requesting that the 11 Commission direct Resorts to make deposits of 12 all revenue generated from operation at Resorts 13 into the property account. 14 If it was just the request to make a 15 demand, we don't see any licensing issue in 16 connection with that. They can make whatever 17 demand they want. As to whether or not 18 anything takes place with respect to that, 19 that's a contract issue that the parties would 20 potentially resolve in some other forum. But 21 asking the Commission to direct -- we believe 22 that asking the Commission to direct Resorts to 23 deposit all revenues in there -- in this 24 account is something quite different. And, 25 essentially, Column Trimont is asking you to 60 ITEM NO. 11 1 resolve a contract dispute. And, in that 2 regard, we object to that request, and we 3 object to that requested relief to the extent 4 that it asks the Commission to direct that all 5 the deposits be made into the property account. 6 Paragraph 18b is a request from Column 7 Trimont to sweep cash out of the property 8 account. And it's been -- this request has 9 also been modified by this February 24th letter 10 that was submitted in the sense that Column 11 Trimont states that prior to a bankruptcy, they 12 do reserve the right in a bankruptcy setting to 13 sweep the cash out of the account, and 14 presumably before seeping any excess cash, they 15 want all payments to be made into the account, 16 and they want to control the disbursements from 17 this account. And they want the disbursements 18 from the account to be made pursuant to a 19 budget that they approve and that any other 20 requests in connection with funds from the 21 account would have to go through them in terms 22 of approvals. This is the issues we dealt with 23 at length in the hearing. You heard the 24 testimony when we were here before. 25 Essentially, Column wants to control the 61 ITEM NO. 11 1 revenues of Resorts. They want the revenues to 2 go into this account. Admittedly, an account 3 that is in their name in Resorts' name at 4 Commerce Bank. But it would be an account that 5 would be controlled by Column Trimont, and 6 Column Trimont would only approve disbursements 7 from that account pursuant to a budget that -- 8 an approved budget. And then any deviations 9 from that would have to -- you'd have to get 10 their permission in order to make them. And if 11 they decide there shouldn't be a disbursement 12 from that account, then a disbursement can't 13 occur. 14 So, in that regard, we object to that 15 because they're asking to do that without any 16 licensing -- without dealing with any kind of 17 licensure. Trimont -- neither Column or 18 Trimont. But this would be Trimont. Trimont 19 is not licensed. It has not been licensed by 20 this Commission. And so the licensing hasn't 21 been dealt with. And so for that reason we 22 would object to that requested relief in the 23 petition. 24 Paragraph 18c of the petition sort of 25 has two requests? It says that the petition 62 ITEM NO. 11 1 says they would like to obtain control over 2 and/or monitor all revenue from -- you know, 3 generated by operations at Resorts. 4 Paragraph 21 somewhat modifies that. 5 Paragraph 21 of the petition in the sense that 6 it speaks of managing Resorts' bank accounts. 7 Once again, to the extent that there's a 8 request for monitoring, we have no problem with 9 monitoring. As we talked about at the last 10 hearing, they already have been monitoring the 11 revenue at Resorts. There already has been a 12 lot of interaction between the parties with 13 respect to monitoring. You heard the testimony 14 last time. There's no objection to monitoring, 15 and there's been cooperation in that regard. 16 This really isn't about monitoring. 17 This is really about control. Column Trimont 18 wants to control the revenue, and they want to 19 control the disbursement, and we object to that 20 for the same reasons. Column Trimont is not 21 licensed, and they have not dealt with 22 licensing, and they want to be in a position 23 where the Act clearly requires licensing. 24 Paragraph 18d is, I think, a request for 25 relief in the sense that it asks -- requests 63 ITEM NO. 11 1 that the Commission approve or allow Column 2 Trimont to determine whether funds generated 3 from Resorts' bank accounts are being used in 4 accord with "regulatory requirements" and "best 5 practices." Again, to the extent this is a 6 monitoring request, we have no problem with 7 that. They are in a position to ask for this 8 information. Resorts has been giving them this 9 information. But, again, I don't think this 10 really is geared towards monitoring. I think 11 it's geared towards control, and Column Trimont 12 wants to have a say in terms of how the 13 revenues are utilized. Not have a say. They 14 want to control how the revenues are utilized. 15 And, again, they haven't dealt with licensing. 16 So for the same reason, we would object to that 17 provision. 18 Paragraph 19b of the petition is a 19 request by Column Trimont to review all the 20 obligations of Resorts, including obligations 21 such as intercompany agreements and shared 22 services agreements, and Column Trimont 23 requests permission from the Commission to 24 allow them to terminate those agreements if 25 they deem them not to be essential to casino 64 ITEM NO. 11 1 operations at Resorts or if they -- if they 2 again, Column Trimont, deem them to be 3 deleterious to Resorts. This is basically 4 deciding how Resorts operates. And, again, 5 they don't have a license, and they aren't 6 trying to deal with licensure in connection 7 with this request, so we ask this request be 8 denied for the same reasons. 9 We, as you know, have provided Column 10 Trimont with whatever agreements they have 11 requested, and we continue to do so. In the 12 letter I sent to staff, we've also dealt with 13 the somewhat -- somewhat -- well, they were 14 somewhat controversial claims with respect to 15 the shared services agreements in the budget. 16 I think we really dealt with that, actually, on 17 the record. But since that time, we've 18 actually documented the fact that those items 19 have been produced to Column -- to Column 20 Trimont, and they were, in fact, produced prior 21 to the hearing took place before the 22 Commission. 23 In terms of management, there really 24 isn't a request for relief in the petition 25 related to management agreements. Or 65 ITEM NO. 11 1 management. There's some mention of it. 2 Mention in the context of potentially looking 3 for management. But with respect to that, we 4 don't believe that really deals with anything 5 in terms of licensing. Obviously, if there's 6 going to be an attempt of imposed new 7 management at the casino, that would involve 8 licensing. But Mr. O'Gara's already addressed 9 that. 10 I think that is all of the different 11 requests for relief that are set forth in the 12 Column Trimont's petition, and that would be 13 our position with respect to all those requests 14 for relief. 15 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 16 Miss Flaherty? 17 MS. FLAHERTY: Yes, Chair and 18 Commissioners. 19 We would respectfully ask for the 20 imposition of the conditions that we have 21 requested in our reports. The first one is the 22 January 27th report, and we asked for seven 23 conditions in that. 24 We would also request the imposition of 25 the conditions to which Resorts has agreed, the 66 ITEM NO. 11 1 three conditions there. 2 Specifically, I want to make note of the 3 $15 million reserve account on a rolling, 4 consistent basis. That is a critical 5 condition, in our review -- in our view, and we 6 recommend that you impose that. 7 In addition, with regard to the 8 financial monitoring conditions, which is 9 Condition No. 4 in our January 27th report, we 10 have a number of recommendations with regard to 11 a monitoring system in terms of the forecast 12 and analysis that should be submitted to us. 13 And we would also recommend to the 14 Commission that there be a direct communication 15 between Resorts and Trimont with regard to 16 requests for information in the interests of 17 expediting matters and having a free flow of 18 information. And we think it would also be 19 appropriate for the regulators to be copied on 20 whatever information is exchanged between them 21 so that we can perform a monitoring review 22 process. 23 And with that, I would just ask that the 24 conditions be imposed. 25 Thank you. 67 ITEM NO. 11 1 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 2 Let me move to some questions from the 3 Commissioners. 4 Commissioner Epps, you want to lead off? 5 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Sure. 6 Mr. O'Gara, I heard from counsel for 7 Resorts that -- 8 And, Counsel, if I'm wrong, please help 9 me, because I'm trying to see if we can pare 10 this down as narrowly as possible. 11 The issue of filing for foreclosure, the 12 initiating the process, we've established that 13 there's no object -- there's no really dispute 14 about that. They can initiate the process. 15 The issue comes up at the execution of a 16 judgment so that's -- 17 MR. BROOKS: That's correct. 18 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Initiating the 19 process, there's no dispute. 20 MR. BROOKS: We don't believe there's 21 any licensing issue related to that. 22 VICE CHAIR EPPS: The acceleration issue 23 is something that they have rights to do, so 24 there's really no dispute about that. 25 MR. BROOKS: Correct. I think they've 68 ITEM NO. 11 1 already done it, actually, but -- 2 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Well, okay. 3 MR. O'GARA: No. 4 VICE CHAIR EPPS: But what I don't seem 5 to hear that we're in accord on is the issue of 6 the bank accounts. And I don't know that we've 7 yet galvanized whether we're talking about 8 monitoring or control. And so, I guess, 9 I'll -- 10 Mr. O'Gara, do you think it is 11 monitoring? 12 MR. O'GARA: Yeah. I -- it's about a 13 security interest. And, you know, I sometimes 14 think that the account is a Resorts account for 15 our benefit. There are rights under this 16 agreement. These rights are on not new, 17 incidentally. Under this agreement Resorts had 18 budgets they had to submit and all this. It is 19 a security interest. It means that we have -- 20 that's cash collateral. And I think, as we 21 indicate in our letter, we want the right that 22 in the event there is a filing, to seize the 23 cash collateral, not to the finance the 24 bankruptcy if there were to be one. But it is 25 precisely to have it in that account, which the 69 ITEM NO. 11 1 parties voluntarily agreed to in the agreement 2 that was submitted to you, and agreed all the 3 cash could go through it. Each of the steps 4 that I asked for in this letter of February 5 24th come from the loan agreement, 6 Commissioner, which is voluntarily entered into 7 by the parties and approved by the Commission, 8 understanding that that was what the parties 9 felt was appropriate, and you did. It's to 10 have that security interest and establish its 11 there in the cash collateral. 12 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Okay. Now, Counsel 13 suggests that you're asking us to direct 14 Resorts to put the money in there. 15 MR. O'GARA: Well, I think that -- 16 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Do you think that's 17 accurate? 18 MR. O'GARA: I think the agreement is 19 that -- I guess "direct" is the wrong -- we're 20 asking you issue an order that that account be 21 one that's utilized pursuant to the agreement 22 that you approved. When you approved it, that 23 was the account that was going to be utilized. 24 Why it isn't or -- you know, I can't answer 25 that question. But that assures that the cash 70 ITEM NO. 11 1 collateral is in that account, and that's where 2 the security interest is. 3 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Okay. 4 MR. BROOKS: It's clear that they're 5 asking -- let's -- I just want to clear up what 6 the property account was utilized for. 7 Since the time of the loan, the property 8 account was utilized to pay the -- to make the 9 payments. The payments for -- in other words, 10 when a payment for -- under the loan agreement 11 was due, the monies would be deposited in the 12 property account, and then those monies would 13 be wired to Column Trimont -- actually, I think 14 it was KeyBank who would be servicing the loan. 15 So that account was utilized to fund -- for the 16 money -- for the payments to be made under the 17 loan agreement. What they now want you to do, 18 they want you, the Commission, to do is 19 direct -- they don't use -- the word "direct" 20 in there. I took that from their letter. They 21 want you to direct Resorts to put all revenue 22 into that account, all revenue generated from 23 Resorts into that account, and they want all 24 revenue to go into that account, and they want 25 to control disbursements from that account. 71 ITEM NO. 11 1 Plus, they want the right to sweep that 2 account. 3 Now, in December, early December, they 4 had Column -- I believe it was KeyBank, 5 actually, had sent a letter to Commerce 6 attempting to sweep cash out of that account at 7 that point in time, and they requested daily 8 sweeps of cash in that account. So that any 9 cash that went into that account, they were 10 trying to sweep it out of there. Now, you've 11 heard what they want to do. They want the 12 money in there so that if there a bankruptcy 13 filing, regardless of what happens at Resorts, 14 regardless of what happens to Resorts' 15 employees, the operations of Resorts, et 16 cetera, they want to sweep the cash out. If 17 there's a bankruptcy filed, they're going to 18 take the cash, the cash that would otherwise be 19 from the revenue generated from Resorts. 20 What they're asking you to do today, 21 they're not asking you to send a letter 22 requesting that, demanding it. They're asking 23 you to direct Resorts to do so that. That's 24 not the role of the Commission. The Commission 25 doesn't decide contracts. Yes, that contract 72 ITEM NO. 11 1 was before you for approval to allow us to 2 enter into a material debt transaction, and you 3 did a material debt transaction approval and 4 analysis of that contract, and Commission staff 5 made sure that the different language that had 6 to be in the contract was in the contract, 7 including the language right in Section 8 which 8 said that any and all remedies are subject to 9 the Casino Control Act and the rulings of this 10 Commission. And in Section -- including 11 Section 10.23 of that loan agreement, which 12 then put the Casino Control Act -- requirements 13 of the Casino Control Act, the requirements the 14 Casino Control Commission regulations, and 15 rulings from this body as of -- over all the 16 rights and remedies that were set forth in that 17 loan agreement. 18 So, yeah. You approved that document. 19 But you didn't approve or decide that Resorts 20 would have to put all the funds generated from 21 operations at Resorts into any specific 22 account. If they feel like that's a dispute, 23 if they have a dispute about that, there's a 24 place to go. It's called Superior Court of New 25 Jersey. They can file a complaint. And they 73 ITEM NO. 11 1 can adjudicate it in the Superior Court of New 2 Jersey. And that's where it would be -- that's 3 where that action would belong. There is -- 4 they have no right, and there's no real basis 5 for you -- for them to ask you to direct 6 Resorts to put the funds in there. That's a 7 breach-of-contract issue. If they feel like 8 there's a breach going on, they can -- you 9 know, they can request -- they can go to court, 10 seek a remedy for that. But not -- to come 11 before you to ask you to give them the remedy, 12 it's improper, and that's why we're objecting 13 to that. 14 VICE CHAIR EPPS: And, quickly, Mr. 15 Brooks, you made a point, and let me see if I 16 understand the point that you made. 17 MR. BROOKS: Yes, sir. 18 VICE CHAIR EPPS: You suggested, I 19 think, that the account was set up was the 20 account from which the payments to your lender 21 were to be made. 22 MR. BROOKS: Correct. 23 VICE CHAIR EPPS: So they could be 24 transferred from that account directly to your 25 lender. And inasmuch as -- I think it's 74 ITEM NO. 11 1 clearly been established that right now you're 2 not making that payment. 3 MR. BROOKS: Correct. 4 VICE CHAIR EPPS: So because you're not 5 making that payment, I think you're saying that 6 account -- you don't have to put the money in 7 that account because everybody knows you're not 8 making that payment. You're using that money 9 to do whatever it is you have to do or can 10 still do with what you have. 11 MR. BROOKS: Correct. The money is 12 going into other accounts, so the accounts that 13 were created as part of the loan agreement. 14 Which they have visibilities to. They know 15 what the money -- they know what the revenue 16 is. They know what's being generated. They 17 can ask at any time. We've given them all the 18 information they could want out of that. We 19 show where it's going, how it's being spent, 20 and what's being generated at the facility. 21 They want it to go into that property 22 account because they have an ability in that 23 property account pursuant to the property 24 account control agreement, which is another 25 collateral agreement to the loan agreement, to 75 ITEM NO. 11 1 sweep cash out of it. So they want that money 2 in there so they can take it. That's why they 3 want it in there. They want it in there in 4 case there's a bankruptcy filing. Mr. O'Gara 5 has already said it. They want to be able to 6 swipe -- to take the cash out of that, to sweep 7 the cash out of that. And they've already made 8 that request, that request to sweep the cash 9 out of there. So they want control of the 10 cash. 11 Plus -- plus, on top of that, they want 12 to be able to control disbursements from that 13 account. So they want us to put all revenues 14 generated from Resorts into that account, and 15 then the only disbursements that could go out 16 of that account would be disbursements that are 17 pursuant to an approved budget, and anything 18 that's outside that budget, they would have 19 you -- Resorts would have to request permission 20 from Column Trimont -- actually, it would be 21 Trimont -- Trimont in order for those funds to 22 be utilized for whatever expense was not a 23 budgeted item. And you heard a lot of 24 testimony about that, but you heard from every 25 one of their witnesses. And it was called 76 ITEM NO. 11 1 negative control. It was a little bit of a 2 moving target. But it's control. That's what 3 they want. Not monitoring. Control. They 4 have monitoring, and we're prepared to help 5 them, assist them in any way with the 6 monitoring part of things. They want control. 7 And that property account is the 8 account, because of the property account 9 control agreement, which gives them the right 10 to sweep cash out of that account without 11 asking anybody else. It's that -- and so they 12 want the revenue to go there, and they want to 13 control the revenue, any flow of revenue out of 14 there. And they've said. If there's a 15 bankruptcy, all bets are all off. They can 16 sweep the cash. 17 MR. O'GARA: If I might, Commissioner, 18 you know, my clients aren't Jesse James showing 19 up here with a gun. They entered into an 20 agreement, and under that agreement, when 21 there's a default, all that money goes into the 22 property account. That's the way the agreement 23 work. That's what they agreed to. 24 Now, we've told you the security 25 interest is in the event of a bankruptcy. But 77 ITEM NO. 11 1 you also have from KeyBank, the document 2 between Key and Trimont, whereby the depositing 3 of $15 million into an account -- the $15 4 million that the Division is talking about. 5 That is if all the money from the -- from this 6 account isn't sufficient to meet the expenses 7 of this property going forward, they will put 8 money in, and when they get to the point that 9 they can't under the value of ratio put any 10 money more in, that 15 million stays there to 11 meet them when they can't honor any further 12 requests. No one's taking money out. It's 13 coming in. It's to control that money, so it's 14 not used in a fashion other than for the 15 purposes that preserve the property and the 16 very things that are the elements of financial 17 stability. No one's taking any money from here 18 and going anywhere with it. In fact, what 19 isn't being paid are interest payments, and 20 they, obviously, are not going to be paid under 21 the budget that we have. 22 So we're seeking to have that security 23 interest in it. These are all things that are 24 in the agreement that would happen in the event 25 of default, and these are things that we seek 78 ITEM NO. 11 1 to do. If we, in fact, as has been 2 represented, and I think you have the 3 correspondence with your staff, there are 4 obligations to fund up shortfalls. If that 5 money in those accounts isn't enough, we would 6 fund up up to a point under the servicing 7 agreement where it's beyond the value of the 8 property. And to assure that will be done, 9 we've not only represented -- KeyBank has 10 represented to Trimont, and we represented to 11 you, that those advances will come from Key, 12 but further that if we get to the point where 13 there can't be any more because of the value of 14 the advances is getting to the appraised value 15 of the property, there's a $15 million 16 dedicated account that stays behind. That's 17 not even rolling. It's there. The money rolls 18 otherwise. Nothing's coming out. 19 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Did you say that 20 there's an automatic trigger in the event of 21 default that suggests that the property account 22 is the depository -- 23 MR. O'GARA: It's the central depository 24 account for all of the -- and the question is 25 whether or not -- 79 ITEM NO. 11 1 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Is that only in the 2 event of default, that there's an automatic 3 trigger that makes that -- 4 MR. O'GARA: There are to be a series of 5 accounts, things were to be deposited. And now 6 after the default, everything goes through this 7 account, and then goes into other accounts that 8 are, in fact, established under the agreement. 9 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Mr. Brooks, you don't 10 seem to agree. 11 MR. BROOKS: We don't agree with that. 12 We don't agree with that. And we do not agree 13 with that interpretation of the contract. We 14 do not agree with that. 15 And, again, they're talking about 16 controlling the bank accounts. Whether they 17 have a reserve account set up for whatever, 18 they are talking about controlling the bank 19 accounts and disbursements from the bank 20 account. That's very -- let's be very clear 21 about that. They want to control any funds 22 that leave. The revenues going in and the 23 funds that go out, they want to control that. 24 And they don't have a license. They haven't 25 been before you. They're not licensed. They 80 ITEM NO. 11 1 haven't attempted to get licensed. But they 2 want to have that level of control. 3 I understand that they want to establish 4 a reserve account, but they want to control the 5 funds of a licensed casino and without any 6 licensing on their part. And that's what 7 they're asking you to do today. 8 But we do not agree with that contract 9 interpretation, and if there's a dispute about 10 that, there's a forum to resolve it, and it 11 isn't this one. 12 MR. O'GARA: One thing. I want to 13 establish that Trimont has a completed 14 application for a nongaming CSI, and I believe 15 under our obligations, you can function as a 16 nongaming CSI pending your licensure when the 17 application is deemed complete. 18 CHAIR KASSEKERT: It's a different kind 19 of licensure, though. 20 MR. O'GARA: Excuse me? 21 CHAIR KASSEKERT: A nongaming -- I mean, 22 a nongaming CSI is not a casino license. 23 MR. O'GARA: No. But they're not 24 seeking to operate a casino. They're going to 25 service the loan. That's all they act as is a 81 ITEM NO. 11 1 servicer. They are a special servicer here. 2 I'd invite you to look -- the loan 3 agreement just simply says -- I mean, Mr. 4 Brooks disagrees -- upon the event of default, 5 all the deposits are made in that account. 6 That's just a simple language. There's nothing 7 coming out of these accounts. In fact, it is 8 the other way. And I ask you to, you know, 9 take a look at and be aware of that as well. 10 CHAIR KASSEKERT: I think we have -- 11 Commissioner Epps, do you want a break? 12 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Yeah. 13 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Commissioner 14 Sommeling? 15 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Mr. Brooks -- 16 MR. BROOKS: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: I recall that 18 Mr. Ribis testified that seeking relief through 19 a bankruptcy filing is not something that 20 Resorts is considering, at least at this time, 21 but wouldn't such a filing afford Resorts some 22 flexibility and ensure continued operations? 23 MR. BROOKS: It could. Commissioner, it 24 could. I think that idea would be to try to 25 work through this problem and avoid doing that, 82 ITEM NO. 11 1 because bankruptcies -- there's a lot of fees 2 and costs. I don't have to tell you. You have 3 to approve them every time we're here when 4 Tropicana presents petitions to you. You know 5 the fees and costs associated with a 6 bankruptcy. They are enormous. And so they're 7 trying -- cash is not in great supply. So the 8 idea is to try to resolve these problems 9 without resorting to bankruptcy so as to avoid 10 all the cash -- all the expenditures that have 11 to be made with respect to just the filing of 12 the bankruptcy and paying professionals and all 13 the things that go along with that. So I think 14 there's an effort to try to resolve it and 15 resolve the dispute with the creditor so as to 16 avoid that possibility. Is it a possibility? 17 Yes. It's a possibility. But Resorts is 18 making every effort to avoid that. 19 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Thank you. 20 No more questions, Madame Chair. 21 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Commissioner Epps, any 22 more questions? 23 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Not right now. 24 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Not right now? Okay. 25 Want to take a recess? 83 ITEM NO. 11 1 We're going to take a recess. 2 Thank you. 3 MR. BROOKS: Thank you. 4 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. Let me just -- 5 we'll recess until 2 p.m. 6 MR. O'GARA: What time? Excuse me, 7 Chair? 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Two p.m. 9 MR. O'GARA: Okay. Thank you. 10 (A recess was taken from 12:53 to 4:02 11 p.m.) 12 CHAIR KASSEKERT: We'll go back on the 13 record. Let me ask at this point if there are 14 any other matters that need to be brought to 15 our attention at this time? 16 MR. BROOKS: No, Madame Chair. 17 MR. O'GARA: No, ma'am. 18 MS. FLAHERTY: No, Madame Chair. No, 19 Commissioners. 20 CHAIR KASSEKERT: All right. Let me 21 just ask if any of the Commissioners have any 22 additional questions just -- 23 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: No questions, 24 Madame Chair. 25 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Okay. Thank you. 84 ITEM NO. 11 1 All right. At our last meeting, the 2 Commission conducted a hearing on the 3 application by a lender and its agents for 4 permission to pursue certain default remedies 5 against Resorts and its affiliates as provided 6 in their loan agreement. We also considered 7 the casino licensee's cross petition for 8 declaratory rulings regarding the regulatory 9 status of the lender, Column Financial, an 10 affiliate of Credit Suisse, and their agents, 11 Trimont and KeyCorp. After reserving decision 12 on those matters, we return today to issue our 13 ruling. But before doing so, I would like to 14 reiterate a few of the concerns articulated in 15 my prior remarks. 16 Given the compelling interests at stake, 17 not all of which require our consideration, it 18 was important to provide the parties a full 19 opportunity to explore a satisfactory 20 resolution that would ensure the continued 21 viability for our longest standing casino 22 licensee while preserving its loyal workforce 23 of upwards of 3,000 employees. 24 Notwithstanding our consideration of 25 very nuanced regulatory issues, I strongly 85 ITEM NO. 11 1 encourage the parties as they consider to 2 discuss their issues that they be mindful that 3 the success of Atlantic City casino -- the 4 success of the Atlantic City casino industry is 5 vital to the success of New Jersey. 6 That being said, I now turn to the 7 specifics of the matter at hand. In 2007 the 8 Commission approved Resorts' request to borrow 9 up to $360 million from Column Financial, which 10 initially held the entire loan. Pursuant to 11 permission granted when we approved the 12 transaction, Column Financial eventually 13 securitized a portion of the loan, in part to 14 reduce its risk of loss in the event of a 15 default. As part of the securitization, a 16 company referred to as KeyCorp was appointed as 17 the master servicer to handle, among other 18 things, the processing of payments under the 19 loan. 20 The loan itself is devoid of many of the 21 financial covenants that the Commission 22 typically sees in casino financings where 23 certain benchmarks must be met on a periodic 24 basis in order for the borrower to remain in 25 compliance with the loan's terms. Instead of 86 ITEM NO. 11 1 having to meet those types of covenants, the 2 loan agreement provides for Resorts to 3 establish various accounts into which it would 4 deposit funds, from its operations or 5 otherwise, that would be earmarked to cover 6 specific purposes such as insurance premiums, 7 interest payments, and real estates taxes. 8 Control of its tax flow is the casino's 9 lifeblood. To ensure that no unwarranted 10 disruption in that flow occurred, the 11 Commission imposed a condition when it approved 12 Resorts' loan with Column Financial that 13 required further Commission approval before any 14 remedies on default could be exercised, 15 especially if impacting on the property account 16 or any other account. 17 Since the loan's inception, the monthly 18 interest has been paid through last October. 19 However, beginning with the scheduled November 20 payment and continuing until the present, 21 Resorts has not been paying interest, which 22 indisputably constitutes an event of default 23 under the loan. Not surprisingly, Column 24 Financial wants to proceed with the remedies it 25 bargained for under the loan. As a step of 87 ITEM NO. 11 1 that process, the special servicing duties that 2 initially fell to KeyCorp are now vested in 3 Trimont, which has general expertise in such 4 matters, albeit not specific to the casino 5 realm. 6 It bears noting here that the issues in 7 the dispute between Petitioners and Cross 8 Petitioner, while sounding in matters that are 9 relevant under the Casino Control Act, are 10 primarily contractual. If we were a court, 11 settlement discussions would have been 12 formalized as part of this process. And 13 although my comments from the last meeting 14 certainly hoped that an acceptable compromise 15 proposal would be forthcoming, our proceedings 16 do not, unfortunately, do not easily lend 17 themselves to compelling such a disposition. 18 Nevertheless, had the parties reached consensus 19 on their own, it is doubtful that the competing 20 petitions, which exhaustively discuss the 21 foreclosure option, would have ever been filed. 22 As filed, Column Financial's petition 23 broadly sought approval to initiate the "usual 24 legal remedies pursued upon default of 25 commercial loans." As noted at the last 88 ITEM NO. 11 1 meeting, a central tenet under the Casino 2 Control Act recognizes that, with limited 3 exceptions, the need for qualification arises 4 whenever the ability to control a casino 5 licensee is manifest. To preserve that 6 interest, it is best that our inquiry only 7 focus on narrowly defined and specific matters, 8 rather than any broad edict that might be prone 9 to misapplication. Even so, the initial broad 10 request plainly has now been significantly 11 refined during the course of the hearing as 12 elicited through testimony, on which I trust 13 that the Petitioners now intend for us to 14 primarily rely. 15 With that, the exercise of the following 16 five so-called remedies merits our attention: 17 Number one, acquisition of the title -- 18 of title to the property, either through the 19 acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure or 20 upon entry of a judgment of foreclosure. 21 Number two, acceleration of the maturity 22 date on the loan. 23 Number three, initiation of a search for 24 a management team to operate the property. 25 Number four, oversight of various 89 ITEM NO. 11 1 Resorts' bank accounts. 2 And, number five, review of any existing 3 shared services or similar agreements. 4 Since I will confine my comments to only 5 these remedies, pursuing the exercise of any 6 others not specifically discussed and 7 authorized would, in my view, require further 8 Commission approval. 9 Hypothetically, if Trimont held a casino 10 license, any decision that we might make on 11 whether to permit it to pursue some or all of 12 those remedies would be materially different 13 from a decision on whether Trimont could 14 proceed with those remedies in its current 15 posture as an applicant for a nongaming related 16 casino service industry license. In that 17 regard, Resorts' cross petition urges us to 18 decide the regulatory status of the lenders and 19 their agents before allowing any pursuit of 20 remedies. In some respects, Trimont and its 21 principals implicitly are seeking that same 22 relief because, in their view, they can proceed 23 with all available remedies with their current 24 regulatory status. 25 With Trimont having initiated this 90 ITEM NO. 11 1 matter, I believe we should approach the 2 question from its perspective rather than to 3 endeavor to assign in a vacuum what regulatory 4 status would be necessary to effect a 5 particular remedy. Thus, each proposed remedy 6 will be analyzed based on the current 7 regulatory posture of the parties involved. 8 Ultimately, now that the parties 9 seemingly have been unable reach an amicable 10 solution, Trimont and its principals want title 11 to the land beneath the casino hotel and have 12 suggested two means by which to accomplish that 13 goal. First, they proposed that Resorts 14 voluntarily tender a deed in lieu of 15 foreclosure, presumably as a prelude to 16 negotiating an extinguishment of all borrower 17 obligations under the loan. Second, Trimont is 18 prepared to file a foreclosure complaint 19 against Resorts in Superior Court. 20 Thus far, Resorts apparently has shown 21 no inclination to accept the deed in lieu 22 offer, in part fearing that doing so would 23 place its licensability in issue by a transfer 24 of real property to an entity without it first 25 obtaining interim casino authorization or 91 ITEM NO. 11 1 otherwise establishing its regulatory 2 suitability. Nevertheless, through testimony, 3 and consistent with the conditions that the 4 Division recommends, Trimont clearly is 5 prepared to obtain a determination on its 6 status before arranging to accept a deed in 7 lieu of foreclosure. 8 In any event, since Resorts cooperation 9 is necessary in order for Trimont to obtain 10 title by a deed in lieu, that route is not a 11 unilateral remedy contemplated by the licensed 12 condition. Although the condition technically 13 may not pertain, the Casino Control Act and its 14 implementing regulations already establish a 15 process for scrutinizing the hypothetical 16 voluntary transfer of title, by a deed in lieu 17 or otherwise, and Trimont and its principals 18 are fully prepared to submit to such scrutiny 19 as may be necessary if and when the 20 condition -- the circumstance warrant. 21 As for initiating a foreclosure 22 complaint that would lead to a transfer of 23 title in the event Trimont obtains a judgment 24 of foreclosure, the broad wording of the 25 license condition certainly compels our 92 ITEM NO. 11 1 attention. However, time and time again 2 lawsuits of different varieties have been filed 3 against casino licensees without first 4 obtaining Commission authorization, and 5 although the proposed foreclosure complaint is 6 a specialized type of lawsuit, a review of the 7 Casino Control Act's regulatory interests amply 8 demonstrates that the filing of such an action 9 is no different from all those others where the 10 Commission is never involved. Had the 11 condition been more narrowly drawn, this issue 12 would not have arisen, and it is certainly not 13 my desire that such a complaint be filed. 14 Although I'm satisfied that permitting 15 the filing of any such complaint is little more 16 than a ministerial and pro forma act that would 17 have otherwise been unnecessary but for the 18 broad wording of the remedy condition, which I 19 would modify going forward to allow for the 20 commencement of any other applicable court 21 proceeding. Moreover, it should be clear that, 22 if my colleagues agree with me, the Commission 23 would not be requiring a foreclosure complaint 24 to be filed, but rather would merely be 25 affording Petitioners permission to do so with 93 ITEM NO. 11 1 the ultimate decision still left to their 2 discretion. Further, without sounding unduly 3 optimistic, it certainly remains a possibility 4 that the parties might arrive at an 5 accommodation before such a complaint is ever 6 filed. 7 In any event, the Division again 8 recommends and Trimont has acceded to a 9 condition requiring Trimont and its principals 10 to petition and receive a ruling on their 11 regulatory status before any title actually 12 passes. For regulatory purposes, the passage 13 of title is the ultimate critical juncture and 14 not the mere filing of the foreclosure 15 complaint, which even Resorts concedes in its 16 papers may proceed without offending the 17 condition in its license resolution. 18 Before leaving the discussion regarding 19 the transfer of title, some comment on the 20 relevance of the PROPCO holding -- of PROPCO's 21 holding of a nongaming CSI license is 22 warranted. PROPCO is an affiliate of Resorts 23 that was created contemporaneously with the 24 inception of the loan. Although PROPCO has 25 been referred to as Resorts' landlord, PROPCO 94 ITEM NO. 11 1 does not actually own the land beneath the 2 casino hotel. Rather, Resorts itself actually 3 retains title to most of that land but leases 4 it to PROPCO, which in turn leases that land 5 back to Resorts. Give then Resorts, a casino 6 licensee, retains title to the fee estate, any 7 foreclosure upon that interest by other than a 8 casino licensee would bear particular scrutiny. 9 Moreover, the relevance of Trimont's 10 application for a CSI license is illusive. 11 Although PROPCO holds a CSI license, it is also 12 a qualified financial source and entity 13 qualifier. More importantly, PROPCO from its 14 vantage as a CSI licensee does not control 15 Resorts' cash flow or the accounts at issue, so 16 any guidance for Trimont in that regard is not 17 readily discernible. 18 Turning next to whether Trimont and its 19 principals may accelerate the maturity date of 20 the loan and initiate a search for a management 21 team, Resorts voices no opposition to the 22 present pursuit of either avenue, provided that 23 any installation of a new management group 24 proceed in accordance with the Act. In harmony 25 with Resorts' comments and as the Division 95 ITEM NO. 11 1 recommends, I agree that such steps may be 2 taken provided that the regulators are afforded 3 the opportunity to monitor any progress in that 4 regard. 5 Not surprisingly, the proposals to 6 control the bank accounts and to review and 7 displace certain agreements have drawn the most 8 attention. It appeared from the testimony 9 during our last meeting that those requests 10 were simply to monitor such accounts but with a 11 security interest therein. I believe that the 12 monitoring role alone is consistent with the 13 underlying loan documents, may proceed without 14 any heightened scrutiny under the Act, just as 15 in the case of other loan agreements held by 16 other entities and licensees. However, from 17 today's colloquy, Petitioners, while continuing 18 to advocate for the ability to monitor, 19 nevertheless still seek a measure of control 20 through the asserted contract rights that they 21 have in the property account. 22 No one disputes that the Commission 23 approved the material debt transaction as 24 contemplated by the loan agreement and other 25 documents. However, certainly a fair surmise 96 ITEM NO. 11 1 is that the remedies condition at issue was 2 imposed to address the potential reach of these 3 documents. 4 The role of the condition was to afford 5 the regulators the opportunity to assess the 6 consequences of default for the purposes of the 7 Act and not to restructure the agreement 8 between the parties. Insofar as there is a 9 dispute regarding the meaning of those 10 contracts, that dispute is for another forum, 11 not us. Thus, I am not prepared to direct 12 Resorts to deposit funds into the property 13 account. If it should be decided elsewhere 14 that such deposits must be made, then our role 15 would be to evaluate whether the control 16 derived through that account necessitates 17 further qualification or licensure from those 18 with the ability to exercise such control. 19 In the interim, and absent further 20 Commission order, Resorts must ultimately 21 retain control over its cash flow and the 22 accounts, as well as full decision-making 23 authority over which agreements to honor or 24 reject. Certainly, if information is brought 25 to our attention that suggests a modification 97 ITEM NO. 11 1 is warranted, we would be prepared to address 2 such matters in due course and with expediency, 3 if necessary. 4 As should be apparent from my earlier 5 remarks, I endorse many of the conditions that 6 the Division is recommending. Nevertheless, 7 one area on which so far I have not touched 8 upon concerns the call for Resorts to maintain 9 a $15 million cash balance at all times. 10 Without doubt, such a requirement is 11 appropriate in my view. 12 For their part, Column Financial and 13 Trimont apparently are contractually obligated 14 to supply a modicum of financial flexibility to 15 Resorts. Although they propose doing so 16 initially with a $15 million commitment, the 17 amount supplied ultimately could be higher. In 18 any event, qualification and licensure issues 19 may arise if such an arrangement is structured 20 through an entity that is not exempt from 21 qualification which bears monitoring. 22 Any such flexibility, if supplied, 23 certainly is not done through regulatory 24 compulsion. Thus, whatever contractual 25 obligation may exist to supply Resorts with 98 ITEM NO. 11 1 financial flexibility does not and cannot 2 provide entry into areas regulated under the 3 Act without the necessary scrutiny. In that 4 regard, Petitioners seemingly acknowledge that 5 such flexibility, once supplied, cannot be 6 withdrawn with impunity, for they propose 7 providing 45 days notice if they intend to 8 terminate such flexibility. Thus, I agree with 9 the Division's recommendation that we should 10 require written notice of at least 45 days 11 before any such flexibility is withdrawn. 12 As for the other conditions that the 13 Division recommends, each of them appears in 14 some form in the draft resolution that has been 15 prepared. So, accordingly, I will move to 16 adopt that resolution and grant Column 17 Financial, Trimont, and their related entities 18 under the loan agreement limited relief from 19 the remedies condition consistent with my 20 earlier remarks and as set forth in the draft 21 resolution, and I so move. 22 Is there a second? 23 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Second. 24 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion has been made 25 and seconded this is a roll call vote. 99 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Fedorko? 2 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Yes. 3 MR. NANCE: Commissioner Sommeling? 4 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Yes. 5 MR. NANCE: Vice Chair Epps? 6 VICE CHAIR EPPS: Yes. 7 MR. NANCE: Chair Kassekert? 8 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Yes. 9 MR. NANCE: The record will reflect that 10 the motion is unanimous. 11 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 12 MR. BROOKS: Thank you, Madame Chair. 13 Thank you, members of the Commission. 14 MR. O'GARA: Thank you. 15 MR. NANCE: In accordance with 16 Resolution No. 08-12-10-22, the next closed 17 session of the Commission shall be held on 18 Wednesday, March 18th, 2009, at 9:15 a.m. in 19 the Commission offices. 20 It is now time for the public 21 participation portion of the meeting. 22 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Is there anyone from 23 the public who wishes to be heard? 24 Hi. Yes. Come forward, please. 25 Please state your name for the record. 100 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1 MR. BECK: Sure. Jeffrey Beck. 2 Managerial Assistant, Council on Compulsive 3 Gambling of New Jersey. Thank you, Madame 4 Chair. Thank you, Commissioners, for an 5 opportunity to briefly speak. 6 I am also New Jersey delegate to the 7 National Council on Problem Gambling and 8 National Chairman of the National Problem 9 Gambling Awareness week, which is March 1st to 10 March 7th. It falls right now. And I thought 11 it would be appropriate just to speak briefly 12 to you. I know it's been a long day. I'll 13 keep my remarks very short. Just about 14 National Problem Gambling week, what it's 15 about, and what we're trying to do. 16 There's several elements to it. First 17 of all, we are trying -- it's a grassroots 18 effort to educate medical professionals and to 19 raise awareness about compulsive gambling. We 20 have a website www.npgaw.org where we provide 21 fact sheets, press releases, information, 22 screening tools, et cetera, for six different 23 types of people who might be interested. We 24 have it for treatment agencies, prevention 25 agencies, social service agencies, governmental 101 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1 agencies, recovering gamblers, and medical 2 professionals. It's a grassroots effort. The 3 36 states that are affiliates of the National 4 Council, and we try to use ourselves and 5 individuals within our states to spread the 6 word about gambling. 7 Secondly, we have created three press 8 releases that are being nationally distributed 9 in over 150 publications. One is on seniors 10 and gambling, one is on medical professionals 11 and gambling, and the need to ask the gambling 12 question. Because medical professionals are in 13 a unique position of trust. Just like they 14 might ask about drugs or alcohol, it's 15 important that they ask about gambling. 16 The theme for our campaign is Real 17 Recover -- Real Addiction, Real Recovery. What 18 we find is a lot of people are reluctant to 19 seek help for gambling because of stigma, 20 because of shame, and because they believe 21 gambling does not -- treatment does not work. 22 We have created a website on You Tube, 23 www.youtube.com/npgaw2009, where we have public 24 service announcements made by various states 25 have that have been made through the years 102 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1 where we have stories told by recovering 2 gamblers about gambling, about the addiction 3 and about recovery. 4 Again, the message is to spread the word 5 that this is, in fact, an addiction, studies 6 show that 9.1 percent of all compulsive 7 gamblers ever seek help, and so we're trying to 8 get through the stigma and shame and try to 9 spread messages. New Jersey, the Council has 10 joined partners with a number of agencies, to 11 press this movement. We've joined with the 12 Governor's Council on Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 13 Rutgers University, the New Jersey lottery, the 14 College of New Jersey, the Jersey City 15 University. Even yesterday you issued a press 16 release on self-exclusion which made mention of 17 public awareness of the week. 18 So we just think it's an important time 19 to focus on some of the negative consequences 20 of gambling, time to think about what happens 21 with gambling. We know that gambling goes in 22 all communities, whether they are inner cities, 23 well-to-do suburbs, rural communities. We know 24 there are no barriers. Gender is not a 25 defense. Religion, ethnicity, education, 103 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1 money, gambling is an equal-opportunity 2 addiction. What we -- we go to 50 schools 3 every year to talk about gambling. The high 4 schools. But we can't tell them not to gamble. 5 He know that 81 percent of the public has 6 gambled at some time in their life. We know 7 that gambling has been normalized in society 8 when you have the state and religious 9 institutions and schools and organizations 10 endorsing and supporting gambling, recognizing 11 it as a good fundraising tool. So we carry the 12 message that like any behavior carried to 13 excess can become dangerous. We talk about the 14 signs of addiction. We tell them where they 15 can get help. 16 We believe that in order to deal with 17 the issue at the national level -- we have 18 something we called PETRE: Prevention, 19 education, training, research, and enforcement. 20 And I think all five of them are important 21 elements, and we need to get all stakeholders 22 involved, and that includes the government. It 23 includes casinos. The casino industry, casino 24 clients, and the communities. So what we are 25 trying to do is to make it -- in raising public 104 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1 awareness, we want it to be an informed choice 2 whether somebody gambles or not and that means 3 understanding the odds, understanding possible 4 consequences, knowing problem signs of 5 gambling, knowing where they can come in for 6 help, giving responsible gaming messages. 7 I just think it's important during 8 National Problem Gambling Awareness week that 9 we not lose contact and sense of the self of 10 the problem that there are six to nine million 11 people in this country who suffer from 12 compulsive or problem gambling, and we need to 13 keep them in our hearts and in our souls and to 14 work within the gambling structures to try to 15 provide treatment, help, and compassion. 16 Thank you for allowing me to speak. 17 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you for coming 18 in and, as you know, we work very closely with 19 your organizations. 20 MR. BECK: Yes. 21 CHAIR KASSEKERT: We're pleased to see 22 you here. I'm only sorry that it's so late in 23 the afternoon. 24 MR. BECK: Well, thank you, anyway. 25 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Thank you. 105 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1 Is the anyone else in the public that 2 wishes to be heard? 3 (No response.) 4 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Seeing no one, I'll 5 declare this portion of the meeting closed and 6 entertain motion to adjourn. 7 COMMISSIONER SOMMELING: Motion to 8 adjourn. 9 COMMISSIONER FEDORKO: Second. 10 CHAIR KASSEKERT: The motion has been 11 made and seconded. All in favor? 12 (Ayes.) 13 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Opposed? 14 (No response.) 15 CHAIR KASSEKERT: Motion carries. 16 Thank you. 17 (Public Meeting 09-03-04 was adjourned 18 at 4:25 p.m.) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 106 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T E 3 4 5 I, DARLENE SILLITOE, a Certified Court 6 Reporter and Notary Public of the State of New 7 Jersey, certify that the foregoing is a true 8 and accurate transcript of the proceedings. 9 10 11 I further certify that I am neither 12 attorney, of counsel for, nor related to or 13 employed by any of the parties to the action; 14 further that I am not a relative or employee of 15 any attorney or counsel employed in this case; 16 nor am I financially interested in the action. 17 18 19 DARLENE SILLITOE CCR 20 License No XI01023 21 22 Dated: March 8, 2009 23 My Commission Expires on July 10, 2009 24 ID No 2062871 25