Barden and billionaire reach casino deal |

Barden and billionaire reach casino deal

Pittsburgh casino licensee Don Barden and Chicago billionaire Neil Bluhm reached an agreement to transfer ownership of the city’s North Shore casino, the completion of which has been delayed by about a month.

The agreement, which comes after six days of intensive negotiations, still must be approved by the state Gaming Control Board.

Bluhm’s firm, Walton Street Capital, will have a 75 percent stake in the casino. It is unclear how Barden and a host of minor investors will split the remaining 25 percent.

Construction on the casino stalled last month when Barden announced he had spent $200 million that Credit Suisse loaned him for the first stages of construction. He has been unable to pay contractors for work done from April onward.

The subsequent delay pushed back the expected completion by a month, from May to June 2009.

Credit Suisse then told Barden it considered him in default and threatened to foreclose on the North Shore property, where skeletons of the casino and garage have been rising since December.

Barden’s inability to pay for the $780 million casino and the loss of control that followed prompted some lawmakers to call for Barden’s license to be stripped. Letting Barden sell control to Bluhm is akin to letting Barden — not the control board — choose who runs Pittsburgh’s lone casino, they said.

Bluhm’s $120 million is expected to reassure lenders who have been reticent to gamble on the project. Bluhm brings with him Greg Carlin, who runs the Bluhm family’s casino projects in Ontario, Vicksburg, Miss., and Philadelphia.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.