Skip to main content
Log in/Register
  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Search form

American Gaming Association

  • Industry Resources
    • Research
    • Video Library
    • Beyond The Casino Floor
    • State Information
    • FAQ
    • The Real Deal
    • Careers in Gaming
    • Third-Party Experts
    • Helpful Links
    • AGA CARD
  • Government Affairs
    • Priority Issues
    • Other Current Issues
    • Regulatory Reform
    • AGA Online Poker Headquarters
    • Industry Day in Washington
    • AGA PAC
    • Request Federal Issues Updates
  • Social Responsibility
    • All In Campaign Headquarters
    • Responsible Gaming
    • Diversity
  • Events and Programs
    • Global Gaming Expo
    • G2E Asia
    • G2E Webinar Series
    • Responsible Gaming Education Week
    • Industry Day in Washington
    • Gaming Hall of Fame
    • Communications Awards
    • Diverse Vendor of the Year Awards
    • Global Gaming Women
  • Newsroom
    • Latest News
    • Press Releases
    • Speeches and Testimony
    • Op-Eds
    • Letters to the Editor
    • AGA SmartBrief
    • Newsletters
  • About the AGA
    • Membership
    • Leadership
    • Annual Report
    • Contact Us

You are here

Home » Newsroom » Newsletters » Gaming Regulatory and Legal Update » Archives

Pennsylvania Court Upholds Revocation of Foxwoods License

Thursday, December 1, 2011

In November, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania upheld by a 6-1 margin the revocation of the gaming license for Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia.  Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, No. 49 C.D. 2011.  The state gaming control board had revoked the license when financing woes prevented Foxwoods from meeting deadlines for submitting design and construction plans.  Those failures, regulators concluded, showed that the licensee was no longer “financially suitable.”

The court rejected arguments that state law did not impose a financial suitability requirement or, in the alternative, that any such requirements were unconstitutionally vague.  Foxwoods’ problem, the majority opinion held, “was not due to its lack of clarity regarding the Board’s requirements, but to its ability to timely deliver.”  The lone dissenter argued that the gaming control board should have granted Foxwoods an evidentiary hearing in its attempt to save its license.

‹ Tribal Immunity: When a Bond Indenture Becomes a Management Contract up Expanding Slots in South Florida ›

In This Section

  • Latest News
  • Press Releases
  • Speeches and Testimony
  • Op-Eds
  • Letters to the Editor
  • AGA SmartBrief
  • Newsletters
    • Responsible Gaming Quarterly
    • Gaming Regulatory and Legal Update
      • Archives
    • Regulatory Reform Update

Affiliated Websites

Visit the NCRG Webiste

Visit the NCRG Website

Visit the G2E Website

The G2E Asia Website

Visit the G2E Asia Website

The Global Gaming Women Website

Visit the GGW Website

Find a Career in the Industry

Find a Career in the Industry

© 2013 American Gaming Association.

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Contact Us
  • Home