Friday, August 15, 2008
Ind. Decisions - "Court Agrees to Review Attorney General Steve Carter’s Lawsuit Against Second Century, Inc. "
The AG issued this press release late today:
Carter Seeks Court Ordered Accounting of $16 Million in Casino RevenuesThis transfer was apparently granted too late for the Clerk's Office to include in its weekly list, which was posted in this earlier ILB entry this afternoon.
(INDIANAPOLIS, IN) – The Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to hear Attorney General Steve Carter’s lawsuit against Second Century, Inc. (Second Century), a private business that has received more than $16 million from East Chicago riverboat casino revenues, yet has never provided an accounting to the citizens of East Chicago. The Court granted Carter’s Petition to Transfer today.
“The public deserves to know what happened to this money,” Carter said. “There is little evidence that these funds, intended for economic development, have not been wasted.”
In March, 2007, the attorney general filed for a public accounting of funds disbursed to Second Century from the state-licensed East Chicago riverboat (Attorney General’s Counterclaim and Crossclaim for Imposition of Constructive Trust for Public Benefit and Accounting). The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the Marion Circuit Court’s dismissal of the case, allowing Second Century the ability to continue to shield its financial records from the public.
In the Petition to the Indiana Supreme Court, Carter stated: “The Court should grant transfer in this case to update Indiana law concerning constructive trusts, and in particular to decide whether a constructive trust is warranted to remedy the injustice of a deal siphoning millions of dollars of casino gambling revenue to associates of a public official.”
Assisting the Attorney General is Indiana University School of Law professor Patrick L. Baude (Bow-d), a constitutional law expert.
The 3/12/2008 Court of Appeals decision in Steve Carter v. City of East Chicago, Indiana, East Chicago Second Century, Inc., Michael A. Pannos, et al , which found:
The Attorney General’s authority to bring its counterclaim and crossclaim was premised on its characterization of the Showboat agreement as establishing a “public charitable trust.” The agreement did not establish such a “charitable trust,” and therefore the dismissal of counterclaim and crossclaim was not error.is available here.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 15, 2008 07:02 PM
Posted to Indiana Transfer Lists