 Newsletter Signup
Stay informed with the
NEW Casino City Times newsletter! Related Links
|
Gaming News
Harrah's motion denied6 December 2007ILMINGTON, Delaware -- (PRESS RELEASE) -- The Catskill Litigation Trust announced today that on December 4, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied a motion by Harrah's Operating Company, Inc. ("Harrah's", a subsidiary of Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., NYSE: HET) to dismiss a judgment enforcement action commenced by the Catskill Litigation Trust against Harrah's in June 2007. The action seeks to collect approximately $3 Billion under class action judgments of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Court issued in March 2001 for $1.787 billion against Harrah's predecessor, Caesars Entertainment Corporation, and in July 2007 against Harrah's for accrued interest of approximately $1 billion. Harrah's acquired Caesars in June 2005. The July 2007 judgment amended the caption of the case to reflect Harrah's as the proper judgment debtor on the original judgment and award of accrued interest. Harrah's Entertainment Inc., the world's largest casino company, accepted a $17.1 billion offer from Apollo Management LP and Texas Pacific Group in the fourth- biggest private-equity buyout ever. Commenting on the decision, former New York State Attorney General and Catskill Litigation Trust trustee, Dennis C. Vacco stated, "We are pleased with this ruling denying Harrah's motion to dismiss the complaint. The Tribe deserves to have its institutions respected and also deserves to have the decisions of the Tribal Court honored by the federal courts." In August 2007, Harrah's filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the enforcement action, principally claiming that the Trustees had no standing to enforce the March 2001 judgment and that a prior federal lawsuit seeking to enforce the same judgment against Caesars had been settled. Harrah's initially maintained in its public disclosures that: "Prior to our acquisition of Caesars in June 2005, each of the above matters was settled, pending final court approval and execution of documents and mutual releases", but in March 2007 amended this disclosure to state that: "Prior to our acquisition of Caesars in June 2005, it was believed that this matter was settled pending execution of final documents and mutual releases. However, these documents were never executed." In denying Harrah's motion to dismiss the complaint, the court did not preclude the issue of standing or settlement to enforce the judgment from being raised in a new application. |