IPI appeals CCC order to suspend gaming license

Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC caught the Commonwealth Casino Commission off guard yesterday when IPI lawyer Juan T. Lizama disclosed that IPI filed last Friday before the Superior Court an administrative appeal of the CCC board’s order for the indefinite suspension of IPI’s gaming license.

That same CCC board order last April 22 directed IPI to pay $6.6 million in total penalty within six months, and pay immediately $15.5 million and $3.1 million in annual casino exclusive license fee and annual casino regulatory fee, respectively.

With Lizama announcing the filing of the appeal, CCC commissioners agreed to defer making a technical amendment to the order.

At the start of the CCC board’s monthly meeting yesterday at the Springs Plaza in Gualo Rai, assistant attorney general Michael Ernest, who is counsel for CCC executive director Andrew Yeom, informed the board that he noticed a technical error in the CCC board’s final order against IPI and asked the board to reconsider the final order to correct the error. He said it’s only a technical amendment and doesn’t affect much of the substance of the order as the error references dates in the violations.

When the board announced the agenda of the receivership issue, IPI counsel Lizama pointed out that it is not correct to say that there is a receivership. “There hasn’t been a receivership. So keep that noted, that we actually have prevented a receivership. So that’s good news, that’s a good approach to looking at the ongoing construction and the pending issues,” he said.

Lizama then stated that he got involved in the review of CCC board’s consolidated order against IPI.

When Lizama mentioned that filing a motion for reconsideration of CCC’s order could have been the approach, Ernest stood up to object, saying Lizama is not a counsel to any party in those CCC enforcement actions against IPI. “It’s improper for him to be making motions to the commission!” Ernest said.

Lizama clarified that he is not making a motion. “I think you got me wrong,” Lizama told Ernest.

Lizama said what he was trying to say is that IPI filed last Friday a judicial review appeal. “If I was misunderstood, I apologize if I was trying to allude something. I did file the appeal,” the lawyer said.

After his statements, Lizama then left the meeting.

Ernest said that, with Lizama’s announcement of filing the appeal, jurisdiction in the case is now with the Superior Court and that the commission probably doesn’t have jurisdiction to further amend the order. “I believe there may be a motion that we can file in the Superior Court to allow it to send it back down just for the technical correction,” Ernest said.

In response to the question of lawyer Tiberius Mocanu, who represents IPI in the CCC consolidated cases, if he (Ernest) has been served in connection with the appeal, Ernest said he does not have anything from the court.

Ernest pointed out that Lizama stated that he is just representing Cui personally and did not indicate he represents IPI.

Ernest expressed displeasure with this new development, saying he has agreements discussions with Mocanu in this case.

“We were treating this like a motion for reconsideration, in which case that would make their appeal untimely and inappropriate and…offensive,” Ernest said. “I am feeling rather whipsawed by the licensee’s actions.”

Deleon Guerrero asked IPI senior vice president of marketing and public affairs Tao Xing as to who authorized Lizama to file the appeal. Xing replied that Lizama is actually returning to the meeting to explain.

CCC board counsel John P. Lorey, who is the chief of the Office of the Attorney General Civil Division, said it’s better to play it safe. Lorey said it’s probable that the jurisdiction is now with the Superior Court since they have had a representation from Lizama that there has been an appeal, that he is the attorney.

“I think it would make more sense for us to make sure to note that there had been a request for a technical amendment. But since jurisdiction has gone to the Superior Court, that we are deferring action until such time as we are given permission by the Superior Court to make,” Lorey said.

Ernest requested to take a five-minutes recess to wait for Lizama.

Lizama then had discussions outside the conference room with Ernest and Mocanu.

Lizama did not go back to the meeting. The board then voted to defer making a technical amendment to the order.