Greenwood Gaming & Entertainment, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board
15 A.3d 884
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Valley Forge Partners applied to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board for a Category 3 slot license (≤500 machines) for Valley Forge Convention Center, filing date June 29, 2007.
- Greenwood Gaming challenged eligibility, arguing Valley Forge Partners was not a well-established resort hotel and owner of the facility.
- The Board held hearings and found that Valley Forge Convention Center offered substantial year-round amenities and was under same ownership for 15+ years.
- The Board determined Valley Forge Partners owned the Convention Center under equitable ownership (equitable conversion) and that the license could be awarded.
- Greenwood sought review under 4 Pa.C.S. § 1204, arguing errors of law and capricious disregard of evidence; the Board’s adjudication was affirmed.
- Justice SAYLOR filed a dissent; Justice EAKIN also dissented, criticizing the majority’s statutory construction of “well-established resort hotel.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Valley Forge Convention Center qualifies as a well-established resort hotel. | Greenwood: center is a convention hotel, not a resort. | Board: center has a resort-like amenities package and is well-established. | No reversible error; board properly classified as well-established. |
| Whether Valley Forge Partners owned the Convention Center for licensure. | Equitable ownership not proven; sale-conditions still in place. | Under equitable conversion and waivers, Valley Forge Partners held ownership at application. | Valley Forge Partners had equitable ownership retroactive to the application date. |
| Whether the Board erred by not requiring pre-licensing approval of the amenities plan. | Need explicit pre-approval of access plan under §1305(a)(1). | Access plan forms part of internal controls; final issuance follows plan approval. | No error; issuance conditioned on final plan approval prior to operation. |
| Whether the Board properly evaluated financial suitability. | Financing was uncertain; Lubert’s commitment not guaranteed. | Board’s Financial Suitability Task Force conducted extensive review; financiers identified. | Board’s financial suitability finding not arbitrary or capricious. |
| Whether the Board’s decision aligns with statutory limits on Category 3 licensing and market impact. | License would cannibalize revenues from nearby facilities. | Statutory distance requirement met; impact de minimis; market saturation acknowledged but permissible. | Board acted within statutory framework; decision affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allardice v. McCain, 375 Pa. 528 (Pa. 1953) (equitable ownership concept recognized)
- Riverwalk Casino L.P. v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, 926 A.2d 926 (Pa. 2007) (capricious disregard standard for review)
- Pocono Manor Investors, L.P. v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, 927 A.2d 209 (Pa. 2007) (Board review framework under §1204)
- Station Square Gaming, L.P. v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, 927 A.2d 232 (Pa. 2007) (deference to Board fact-finding and discretion)
- Schneider v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 960 A.2d 442 (Pa. 2008) (statutory interpretation and deference considerations)