IPI sues CCC anew

Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC has filed another civil suit against the Commonwealth Casino Commission in federal court, stating that the CCC is taking a judicial role in interpreting the Casino License Agreement, essentially depriving the casino investor of its U.S and CNMI constitutional rights.

IPI, through attorneys Stephen Nutting and Michael Chen, filed yesterday the new civil suit against CCC in the U.S. District Court for the NMI.

In its 14-page complaint, IPI alleged that the CCC is illegally taking on a judicial role in its interpretation of the Casino License Agreement, resulting in an unconstitutional impairment of contract and violation of the contracts clause of the U.S and CNMI constitutions, and violation of the due process clauses of the U.S and CNMI constitutions.

In the suit, IPI argues that the law that established the CCC gives the CCC “broad and sometimes exclusive authority” to interpret the CLA and adjudicate disputes arising from the CLA. The statute also gives CCC broad policing power to regulate IPI as a casino operator.

IPI argues that this is problematic, claiming that the CCC is acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity when interpreting the CLA and adjudicating disputes arising from the CLA, particularly when it called for revocation proceeding and suspension proceedings due to IPI’s non-payment of regulatory fees and other fees under the CLA.

Because the CCC has a direct, substantial—and arguably personal—interest in finding IPl in violation of the CLA, and given that the CCC is funded exclusively by the regulatory fees that are ordered to be paid by IPI and its affiliates to CCC, IPI argues that the CCC is an impartial decision maker.

IPI is asking the court for a jury trial on the matter.

As relief, IPI wants the court to declare that the current regulatory “scheme” where IPI is required to pay $3 million to CCC annually is unconstitutional.

IPI also wants the court to issue an injunction that CCC may not exercise any power granted by CNMI law as long as CCC is not and cannot function as an impartial decision maker.

The casino investor is also asking the court to issue an injunction against the CCC, preventing the assumption of jurisdiction by CCC to interpret the terms of the CLA and/or to adjudicate claims arising out of the CLA.

In addition, IPI seeks a court declaration stating that the assumption of jurisdiction by CCC to interpret the terms of CLA and/or to adjudicate claims arising out of the CLA—either standing alone or in connection with a suspension or revocation proceeding or other enforcement actions as applied to IPl—is unconstitutional. IPI also wants the court to order CCC to vacate, nullify any and all adverse administrative decisions against IPl that were based upon the assumption of jurisdiction by CCC to interpret the terms of CLA and/or to adjudicate claims arising out of the CLA; and for the court to issue an injunction against CCC preventing the enforcement of any CCC order when such orders are “the fruits of an unconstitutional regulatory scheme.”

IPI previously filed a federal suit against CCC, alleging breach of the Casino License Agreement and accusing the CCC of double-charging IPI by imposing an annual regulatory fee of $3 million on top of other prerequisite fees in order for IPI to do business in the CNMI.

IPI sought relief in the form of restitution for all the years it paid the $3-million regulatory fee, dating back to 2015 until its last payment in 2019, as it argues that the actions of the CNMI in enacting and CCC in implementing the annual regulatory fee were and are arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.