ShareThis Page
Supreme Court denies slots bond request |

Supreme Court denies slots bond request

| Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:00 a.m

The losing bidders for Pittsburgh’s slots license don’t have to put up bond money to cover potential lost revenue during the appeals process, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

The state Gaming Control Board had asked the court to require the losing bidders put up $84.4 million in bond to cover money the state would lose in slots revenue during a six-month appeal.

Winning bidder, Majestic Star Casino, separately asked for bonds totaling $68 million to cover money lost while the court considers their appeals.

The Supreme Court rejected those requests today.

State gambling regulators awarded the slots license to Majestic Star in December, but the losing bidders — St. Louis-based Isle of Capri Casino and Cleveland-based Forest City Enterprises — appealed the award. Majestic Star had planned to open in March 2008, but the appeals process has pushed back the opening until at least late next summer.

Categories: News
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.